[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 15 (Friday, January 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3679-3683]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01063]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74074; File No. SR-BATS-2015-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Clarify
the Use of Certain Data Feeds

January 15, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on January 7, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to clarify for Members \3\ and non-
Members the Exchange's use of certain data feeds for order handling and
execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. On July 15, 2014,
the Exchange filed a proposed rule change that described its use of
data feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and
regulatory compliance (the ``Initial Proposal'') with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'').\4\ The Exchange submits
this supplemental filing in order to further clarify for Members and
non-Members the Exchange's use of certain data feeds and to make one
modification with respect to the usage of such data feeds as previously
described.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange. A
Member will have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that
term is defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule
1.5(n).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72685 (July 28,
2014), 79 FR 44889 (August 1, 2014) (SR-BATS-2014-029). Other
national securities exchange filed similar proposals. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72710 (July 29, 2014), 79 FR
45511 (August 5, 2014) (SR-NYSE-2014-38), and 72684 (July 28, 2014),
79 FR44956 (August 1, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-072).
    \5\ The Exchange understands that other national security
exchanges will file similar proposed rule changes with the
Commission to further describe their use of data feeds for order
handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.batstrading.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 parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
Background
    On June 5, 2014, Chair White requested that all national securities
exchanges develop proposed rule changes to disclose their use of data
feeds to execute and route orders and comply with regulatory
requirements.\6\ In addition, on June 20, 2014, the Commission's
Division of Trading and Markets requested that the Exchange file
proposed rule changes that disclose its usage of particular market data
feeds, among other things.\7\ In response to these requests, the
Exchange filed the Initial Proposal with the Commission on July 15,
2014.\8\ The Exchange submits this supplemental filing to further
clarify for Members and non-Members the Exchange's use of certain data
feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory
compliance.\9\ In addition, the Exchange proposes to modify the way
that it constructs the Pegged NBBO, as further described below. To
ensure proper context and a complete filing describing the Exchange's
procedures in this area, the Exchange has repeated all relevant
information from the Initial Proposal and supplemented such information
as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Mary Jo White, Chair, Securities and Exchange
Commission, Speech at Sandler O'Neill & Partners L.P. Global
Exchange and Brokerage Conference (June 5, 2014).
    \7\ See letter from Stephen Luparello, Director, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, to Joe
Ratterman, Chief Executive Officer, BATS Global Markets, Inc., dated
June 20, 2014.
    \8\ See supra note 6.
    \9\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Handling and Execution
    In order to calculate the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') in
its Matching Engine (the ``ME''), the Exchange uses quotes disseminated
by market centers through proprietary data feeds (generally referred to
as ``Direct Feeds'') as well as by the Securities Information
Processors (``SIP''). The ME uses quotes disseminated from SIP feeds
for the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., NYSE MKT LLC and the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority's Alternative Display Facility. The ME
consumes the

Direct Feeds from every other protected venue, including the Exchange's
affiliates, BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX''), EDGA Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGA''), and EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'').
    The ME will include odd lot quotations in its calculation of the
NBBO depending on the source of the quotation. Where a protected market
center aggregates odd lot quotations at a single price level into round
lot quotations and publishes such aggregated quotations to the SIPs,
then the ME will include those odd lot quotations in its calculation of
the NBBO. In addition, where a protected market center aggregates odd
lot quotations across more than one price level and publishes such
aggregated quotations to the SIPs, then the ME will include those odd
lot quotations in its calculation of the NBBO.
    In addition to receiving Direct Feeds and SIP feeds, the ME's
calculation of the NBBO may be adjusted based on orders sent to other
venues with protected quotations, execution reports received from those
venues, and certain orders received by the Exchange (collectively
``Feedback''). The Exchange does not include its quotes in the
calculation of the Exchange's NBBO because the system is designed such
that all incoming orders are separately compared to the Exchange's Best
Bid or Offer and the Exchange calculated NBBO, which together create a
complete view of the NBBO, prior to display, execution, or routing.
    Feedback from the receipt of Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISOs'')
with a time-in-force of Day (``Day ISOs'') and feedback from the
Exchange's routing broker/dealer, BATS Trading, Inc., (``BATS
Trading''), defined respectively as ``Day ISO Feedback'' and ``Router
Feedback,'' are used to augment the market data received by Direct
Feeds and the SIP feeds as further described below. The Exchange's ME
will update the NBBO upon receipt of a Day ISO. When a Day ISO is
posted on the BATS Book,\10\ the ME uses the receipt of a Day ISO as
evidence that the protected quotes have been cleared, and the ME does
not check away markets for equal or better-priced protected quotes.\11\
The ME will then display and execute non-ISO orders at the same price
as the Day ISO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Exchange Rule 1.5(e).
    \11\ Pursuant to Regulation NMS, a broker-dealer routing a Day
ISO is required to simultaneously route one or more additional ISOs,
as necessary, to execute against the full displayed size of any
protected quote priced equal to or better than the Day ISO. See also
Question 5.02 in the ``Division of Trading and Markets, Responses to
Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611 and Rule 610 of
Regulation NMS'' (last updated April 4, 2008) available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/nmsfaq610-11.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All Feedback expires as soon as: (i) One (1) second passes; (ii)
the Exchange receives new quote information; or (iii) the Exchange
receives updated Feedback information. With the exception of Day ISO
Feedback, the Exchange currently generates Feedback where an order was
routed using a routing strategy offered by the Exchange that accesses
protected quotes of trading venues on the System routing table (``Smart
Order Routing'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ As set forth in Rule 11.13(a)(3), the term ``System routing
table'' refers to the proprietary process for determining the
specific trading venues to which the System routes orders and the
order in which it routes them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently determines the price at which a Pegged
Order,\13\ Mid-Point Peg Order,\14\ Market Maker Peg Order,\15\ or
Supplemental Peg Order \16\ is to be pegged based on the Pegged NBBO
(``PBBO''). The Exchange's Matching Engine calculates the PBBO using
the Exchange's quotes from the SIP feeds, and quotes disseminated from
the same Direct Feeds, SIP feeds, and Feedback used by the ME for its
NBBO calculation. As noted above, the Exchange does not otherwise
utilize quotations from its local book in calculating the NBBO, and
thus, the quotation from the SIP has been necessary for pegged orders
in order to generate a view of the Exchange's quotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(8).
    \14\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(9).
    \15\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(16).
    \16\ See Exchange Rule 11.9(c)(19).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Earlier this year, the Exchange and its affiliate, BYX, received
approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'') of the Exchange's parent
company, BATS Global Markets, Inc., with Direct Edge Holdings LLC, the
indirect parent of EDGA and EDGX (the Exchange, together with BYX, EDGA
and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated Exchanges'').\17\ In the context of the
Merger, the BGM Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain
system functionality, retaining only intended differences between the
BGM Affiliated Exchanges. As previously described by EDGA and EDGX,\18\
in addition to information regarding other markets' quotes such
exchanges currently construct an NBBO for purposes of pegged orders
using information regarding orders on the applicable exchange's local
order book (i.e., EDGA constructs a pegged NBBO using information
regarding orders on the EDGA order book and EDGX constructs a pegged
NBBO using information regarding orders on the EDGX order book). In
connection with the technology integration the Exchange similarly
proposes to use information regarding orders displayed on the BATS Book
in addition to quotes disseminated from Direct Feeds, SIP Feeds, and
Feedback in order to construct the PBBO. Thus, as proposed, the
Exchange would no longer use the Exchange's quotes from the SIP feeds
in order to construct the PBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71375 (January 23,
2014), 79 FR 4771 (January 29, 2014) (SR-BATS-2013-059; SR-BYX-2013-
039).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 72682 (July 28,
2014), 79 FR 44938 (August 1, 2014) (SR-EDGA-2014-17); 72683 (July
28, 2014), 79 FR 44950 (August 1, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2014-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Order Routing
    When the Exchange has a marketable order with instructions from the
sender that the order is eligible to be routed, and the ME identifies
that there is no matching price available on the Exchange, but there is
a matching price represented at another venue that displays protected
quotes, then the ME will send the order to the Routing Engine (``RE'')
of BATS Trading.
    In determining whether to route an order and to which venue(s) it
should be routed, the RE makes its own calculation of the NBBO using
the Direct Feeds, SIP feeds, and Router Feedback, as described
below.\19\ The RE will include odd lot quotations in its calculation of
the NBBO depending on the source of the quotation. Where a protected
market center aggregates odd lot quotations at a single price level
into round lot quotations and publishes such aggregated quotations to
the SIPs, then the RE will include those odd lot quotations in its
calculation of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The ME and RE consume the same Direct Feeds and SIP feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The RE does not utilize Day ISO Feedback in constructing the NBBO;
however, because all orders initially flow through the ME, to the
extent Day ISO Feedback has updated the ME's calculation of the NBBO,
all orders processed by the RE do take Day ISO Feedback into account.
The RE receives Feedback from all Smart Order Routing strategies.
    There are three types of Router Feedback that contribute to the
Exchange's calculation of the NBBO:
     Immediate Feedback. Where BATS Trading routes an order to
a venue with a protected quotation using Smart Order Routing (a
``Feedback Order''), the number of shares available at that venue is
immediately decreased by the number of shares routed to the venue at
the applicable price level.

     Execution Feedback. Where BATS Trading receives an
execution report associated with a Feedback Order that indicates that
the order has fully executed with no remaining shares associated with
the order, all opposite side quotes on the venue's order book that are
priced more aggressively than the price at which the order was executed
will be ignored.
     Cancellation Feedback. Where BATS Trading receives an
execution report associated with a Feedback Order that indicates that
the order has not fully executed (either a partial execution or a
cancellation), all opposite side quotes on the venue's order book that
are priced equal to or more aggressively than the limit price for the
order will be ignored.
    All Feedback expires as soon as: (i) One (1) second passes; (ii)
the Exchange receives new quote information; or (iii) the Exchange
receives updated Feedback information.
Regulatory Compliance
    Locked or Crossed Markets. The ME determines whether the display of
an order would lock or cross the market. At the time an order is
entered into the ME, the ME will establish, based upon its calculation
of the NBBO from Direct Feeds, SIP feeds and Feedback, whether the
order will lock or cross the prevailing NBBO for a security. In the
event that the order would produce a locking or crossing condition, the
ME will cancel the order, re-price \20\ the order, or route the order
based on the Member's instructions. Two exceptions to this logic are
Day ISOs and declarations of self-help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Rule 11.9(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Regulation NMS, when an Exchange receives a Day ISO,
the sender of the ISO retains the responsibility to comply with
applicable rules relating to locked and crossed markets.\21\ In such
case, the Exchange is obligated only to display a Day ISO order at the
Member's price, even if such price would lock or cross the market.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 13.
    \22\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Declarations of self-help occur when the RE detects that an
exchange displaying protected quotes is slow, as defined in Regulation
NMS, or non-responsive to the Exchange's routed orders. In this
circumstance, according to Rule 611(b) of Regulation NMS, the Exchange
may display a quotation that may lock or cross the market that the
Exchange invoked self-help against. \23\ The Exchange may also declare
self-help where another exchange's SIP quotes are slow or non-
responsive resulting in a locked or crossed market. Once the Exchange
declares self-help, the ME and RE will ignore the quotes generated from
the self-helped market in their calculations of the NBBO for execution
and routing determinations in compliance with Regulation NMS. The
Exchange will also disable all routing to the self-helped market. The
ME and RE will continue to consume the self-helped market center's
quotes; however, in order to immediately include the quote in the NBBO
calculation and enable routing once self-help is revoked.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See also Question 5.03 in the ``Division of Trading and
Markets, Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Rule 611
and Rule 610 of Regulation NMS'' (last updated April 4, 2008)
available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/nmsfaq610-11.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trade-Through Rule. Pursuant to Rule 611 of Regulation NMS, the
Exchange shall establish, maintain, and enforce written policies and
procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent trade-throughs on
trading centers of protected quotations in NMS stocks that do not fall
within a valid exception and, if relying on such an exception, that are
reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the terms of the
exception. The ME does not permit an execution on the Exchange if there
are better-priced protected quotations displayed in the market unless
the order is an ISO. At the time an order is entered into the ME, the
ME uses the view of the NBBO as described above. If the NBBO is priced
better than what is resident on the Exchange, the Exchange does not
match such order on the BATS Book, and based on the Member's
instructions, the ME cancels the order, re-prices the order or routes
the order.
    Regulation SHO. The Exchange cannot execute a Short Sale Order \24\
equal to or below the current National Best Bid (``NBB'') when a short
sale price restriction is in effect pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation
SHO (``Short Sale Circuit Breaker'').\25\ When a Short Sale Circuit
Breaker is in effect, the Exchange utilizes information received from
Direct Feeds, SIP feeds, and Feedback, and a view of the BATS Book to
assess its compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. The primary
difference between the NBBO used for compliance with Rule 201 of
Regulation SHO and other constructions of the NBBO, however, is that
the Exchange includes market centers against which it has declared
self-help in its view of the NBBO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Exchange Rule 11.19.
    \25\ 17 CFR 242.200(g); 17 CFR 242.201. On February 26, 2010,
the Commission adopted amendments to Regulation SHO under the Act in
the form of Rule 201, pursuant to which, among other things, short
sale orders in covered securities generally cannot be executed or
displayed by a trading center, such as the Exchange, at a price that
is at or below the current NBB when a Short Sale Circuit Breaker is
in effect for the covered security. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 61595 (February 26, 2010), 75 FR 11232 (March 10, 2010).
In connection with the adoption of Rule 201, Rule 200(g) of
Regulation SHO was also amended to include a ``short exempt''
marking requirement. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63247 (November 4, 2010), 75 FR 68702 (November 9, 2010) (extending
the compliance date for Rules 201 and 200(g) to February 28, 2011).
See also Division of Trading & Markets: Responses to Frequently
Asked Questions Concerning Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/rule201faq.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Latent or Inaccurate Direct Feeds. Where the Exchange's systems
detect problems with one or more Direct Feeds, the Exchange will
immediately fail over to the SIP feed to calculate the NBBO for the
market center(s) where the applicable Direct Feed is experiencing
issues. Problems that lead to immediate fail over to the SIP feed may
include a significant loss of information (i.e., packet loss) or
identifiable latency, among other things. The Exchange can also
manually fail over to the SIP feed in lieu of Direct Feed data upon
identification by a market center of an issue with its Direct Feed(s).
 2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \26\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \27\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange does not
believe that this proposal will permit unfair discrimination among
customers, brokers, or dealers because it will be available to all
Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal to describe the Exchange's
use of data feeds removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of
a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest
because it provides additional specificity and transparency. The
Exchange's proposal will enable investors to better assess the quality
of the Exchange's execution and routing services. Other than the
proposed modification to the construction of the PBBO, the proposal
does not change the operation of the Exchange or its use of data feeds;
rather

it describes how, and for what purposes, the Exchange uses the quotes
disseminated from data feeds to calculate the NBBO for a security for
purposes of Regulation NMS, Regulation SHO and various order types that
update based on changes to the applicable NBBO. The Exchange believes
the additional transparency into the operation of the Exchange as
described in the proposal will remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. On the contrary, the Exchange believes the
proposal would enhance competition because describing the Exchange's
use of data feeds enhances transparency and enables investors to better
assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services.

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

    The Exchange filed the Initial Proposal with the Commission on July
15, 2014, and it was published for comment in the Federal Register on
August 1, 2014. The Commission received three (3) written comment
letters in response to the Initial Proposal.\28\ In addition, one (1)
comment letter was submitted to the Commission commenting on a
companion EDGX filing.\29\ The Exchange believes that the comments
raised in these letters are either not directly related to the
Exchange's proposal but instead raise larger market structure issues or
are adequately addressed in this proposal, particularly as it relates
to the Commission's request to describe the Exchange's use of data
feeds for order handling and execution, order routing, and regulatory
compliance. The Exchange further notes that the comments received
regarding the Exchange's calculation of the PBBO are no longer
applicable based on the proposed change described above related to the
technology integration of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Letter from R.T. Leuchtkafer to the Commission, dated
August 22, 2014 (SR-BATS-2014-029) (discussing the Exchange's market
data feed practices). See Letter from Eric Scott Hunsader, Nanex,
LLC, to the Commission, dated August 22, 2014 (SR-BATS-2014-029)
(discussing the Exchange's use of NBBO as a defined term). See
Letter from Donald Bollerman, Head of Market Operations, IEX ATS, to
the Commission, dated September 25, 2014 (SR-BATS-2014-029) (SR-BYX-
2014-012) (discussing the Exchange's calculation of the PBBO).
    \29\ See Letter from Suzanne Hamlet Shatto to the Commission,
dated August 19, 2014 (SR-EDGX-2014-20) (discussing Dodd Frank
principles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \30\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \31\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \32\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \33\ 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
stated that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to
immediately adopt rule text consistent with the Initial Proposal and
offer certain functionality that is already available on EDGA and EDGX
with respect to the use of information regarding orders on the
applicable exchange's order book to construct the PBBO. In addition,
the Exchange stated that waiver of the operative delay will allow it to
continue to move towards a complete technology integration of the BGM
Affiliated Exchanges to ensure stability of the System. For these
reasons, the Commission believes the waiver of the operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \33\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \34\ 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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BATS-2015-04 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-BATS-2015-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of

10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BATS-2015-04 and should be
submitted on or before February 13, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-01063 Filed 1-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 180)]
[Notices]
[Page 53417-53418]
[DOCID:fr16se08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

September 04, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER98-2783-015; ER05-1266-009; ER99-3822-015; ER01-
140-011; ER07-842-005; ER99-4160-016; ER01-141-011; ER01-1044-012;
ER99-2157-012; ER03-42-016.
    Applicants: Ontelaunee Power Operating Company, LLC, CASCO BAY
ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc., Sithe/Independence
Power Partners, L.P., BRIDGEPORT ENERGY LLC, Dynegy Danskammer, L.L.C.,
Dynegy Kendall Energy, LLC, Riverside Generating Company, LLC, Dynegy
Roseton, LLC, Rocky Road Power, LLC.
    Description: Updated Market Power Analysis re Bridgeport Energy,
LLC et al.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080829-5162.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 28, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER00-2508-003.
    Applicants: Orion Power Midwest, L.P., Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic
Pwr Holdings.
    Description: Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic Power Holdings, LLC
submits a Supplement to the June 30, 2008 Triennial Market Update.
    Filed Date: 09/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080902-5148.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-717-009; ER05-721-009; ER04-374-009; ER99-
2341-011; ER06-230-006; ER06-1334-006; ER07-277-004; ER07-810-003.
    Applicants: Spring Canyon Energy LLC; Judith Gap Energy LLC;
Invernergy TN LLC; Hardee Power Partners Limited; Wolverine Creek
Energy LLC; Spindle Hill Energy LLC; Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC; Grays
Harbor Energy LLC.
    Description: Spring Canyon Energy LLC et al. submits notification
of change of status under market-based rate authority.
    Filed Date: 08/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080829-0113.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, September 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-456-015; ER06-954-011; ER06-1271-010; ER07-
424-006; EL07-57-003; ER06-880-011.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits clean and redlined
versions of the revised paragraph of the Offer of Settlement and
Partial Settlement Agreement, in accordance with FERC's July 29, 2008
Order.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080903-0078.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-1364-002.
    Applicants: International Paper Company.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status re International Paper Co.
    Filed Date: 09/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080902-5144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 23, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1094-002; ER08-1095-002; ER08-1097-002.
    Applicants: NAEA Energy Massachusetts, LLC; NAEA Ocean Peaking
Power, LLC; NAEA Rock Springs, LLC.
    Description: NAEA Energy Massachusetts, LLC et al. submits
revisions to their respective market-based rate tariffs, rate schedules
and agreements under ER08-1094 et al.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080903-0077.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 9, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1477-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc
submits Large Generator Interconnection Agreement among American
Transmission Company, LLC, Wisconsin Power and Light Co & Midwest ISO
etc.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080903-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 19, 2008.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA07-11-004; OA07-33-003.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-op.
    Description: Order No. 890 OATT Compliance Filing re Deseret
Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc. under OA07-11 et al.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080829-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: OA07-110-002.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation (South Dakota).
    Description: NorthWestern Corporation (North Western) submits a

substitute version of the Attachment K to its South Dakota Open Access
Transmission Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume 2 etc
under OA07-110.
    Filed Date: 08/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080903-0076.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, September 19, 2008.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings 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) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-21560 Filed 9-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63516-63518]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19295]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1471; Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-63]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification of Class E Airspace; Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial
Airport, Tanana, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class E airspace designated as a
surface area and modifies the Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport,
Tanana, AK. Additionally, this action updates the administrative
portion of the airport's Class E airspace legal descriptions. These
modifications support the safety

and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 30, 2023. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, 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
the 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 modifies Class E airspace to support IFR operations at
Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport, AK.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No.
FAA-2022-1471 in the Federal Register (88 FR 30687; May 12, 2023),
proposing to modify Class E airspace at Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial
Airport, AK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.

Incorporation by Reference

    Class E2 and E5 airspace areas are published in paragraphs 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on
an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that
order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective
September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. These amendments will
be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying the Class E airspace
designated as a surface area and modifying the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ralph M. Calhoun
Memorial Airport, AK.
    The Class E surface area airspace at the airport is increased from
a 3.9-mile radius around the airport to a 5.1-mile radius to fully
contain IFR arrival operations between the surface and 1,000 feet above
the surface when executing the Very High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) Runway (RWY) 7 approach or
the Area Navigation (RNAV) (Global Positioning System [GPS]) RWY 7
approach. Additionally, the two westward extensions to the Class E
surface area at the airport are removed, as they are no longer needed
for containing IFR operations. Finally, the Class E surface area is
extended 1.4 miles to the southwest to fully contain aircraft departing
on the RWY 25 Obstacle Departure Procedure (ODP) between the surface
and the base of adjacent controlled airspace.
    The Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at the airport is also modified. The Class E airspace area
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface that provided a
procedure turn area east of the airport is no longer needed and is
removed. Furthermore, the airspace radius is increased by 0.2 miles to
more appropriately accommodate arriving IFR operations below 1,500 feet
above the surface when executing the VOR/DME RWY 7 or RNAV (GPS) RWY 7
approaches. Lastly, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface is extended to 10.5 miles east of the airport to
fully contain departing IFR operations until they reach 1,200 feet
above the surface while conducting the RWY 25 ODP.
    Finally, the FAA is modifying the administrative text headers to
the airport's legal descriptions. The geographic coordinates located on
line three of both legal description text headers are updated to match
the FAA's database. The Bear Creek nondirectional beacon was
decommissioned on December 2, 2021, and reference to it is removed from
both legal descriptions. Lastly, reference to the Tanana VOR/DME
navigational aid is no longer needed and is removed from both legal
descriptions.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this 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
only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified
that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 11,
2023, and effective September 15, 2023, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area.

* * * * *

AAL AK E2 Tanana, AK [Amended]

Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport, AK
    (Lat. 65[deg]10'28'' N, long. 152[deg]06'29'' W)

    That airspace within a 5.1-mile radius of the airport, and
within 3.6 miles each side of the airport's 214[deg] bearing
extending from the 5.1-mile radius to 6.5 miles southwest of the
airport. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions.
The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Tanana, AK [Amended]

Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport, AK
    (Lat. 65[deg]10'28'' N, long. 152[deg]06'29'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.9 miles each
side of the airport's 082[deg] bearing extending from the 6.6-mile
radius to 10.5 miles east of the airport; that airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile radius of
the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 31, 2023.
B.G. Chew,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2023-19295 Filed 9-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5307-5312]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02346]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0650; FRL-9972-75]

Isoxaben; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
isoxaben in or on apple, the bushberry subgroup 13-07B, the tree nut
group 14-12, and the small vine climbing fruit (except fuzzy kiwifruit)
subgroup 13-07F. Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)
requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 7, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 9, 2018, 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: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0650, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:

     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0650 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 9, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0650, by one of
the following methods:

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of April 10, 2017 (82 FR 17175) (FRL-9959-
61), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E8516) by Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4) Project
Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road
East, Suite 201, W, Princeton, NJ 08540. The petition requested that 40
CFR 180.650 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the
herbicide isoxaben, N-[3-(1-ethyl-1-methylpropyl)-5-isoxazolyl]-2, 6-
dimethoxybenzamide, in or on the raw agricultural commodities apple at
0.01 parts per million (ppm); the bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.01
ppm; the fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup
13-07F at 0.01 ppm; and the nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm. The
petition also requested to remove the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.650 in
or on the raw agricultural

commodities grape at 0.01 ppm; nut, tree, group 14 at 0.02 ppm; and
pistachio at 0.02 ppm. That document referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, the registrant, which is
available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were
received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is
discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
. ''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for isoxaben including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with isoxaben follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Isoxaben shows low acute toxicity by all routes. In chronic oral
studies, the liver (mouse) and kidney (rat) were target organs, and
decreased body weight was observed in the rat, mouse, and dog. There
was no indication of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. No evidence of
increased susceptibility was observed in the rat or rabbit
developmental toxicity studies, but was observed in the rat
reproductive toxicity study only at the limit dose.
    Isoxaben is currently classified as having ``suggestive evidence of
carcinogenic potential,'' based on the presence of liver tumors in male
and female mice. Because the tumors were benign and observed at dose
levels exceeding the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day and there was low
concern for genotoxicity, the cRfD is considered protective of
potential carcinogenicity and a quantitative assessment of cancer risk
was not conducted.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by isoxaben as well as the no-observed-adverse-
effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level
(LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document title ``Isoxaben. Aggregate Human
Health Risk Assessment to Support Proposed New Uses on Bushberry
Subgroup 13-07B and Apple, Crop Group Conversion (Tree Nut Group 14-
12), and Crop Group Expansion (Small Vine Climbing Fruit Except Fuzzy
Kiwifruit Subgroup 13-07F)'' on pages 26-31 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OPP-2016-0650.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for isoxaben used for
human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

   Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Isoxaben for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (All populations)..         An appropriate endpoint for a single exposure was not identified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 5.0 mg/kg/    Chronic RfD = 0.05   Chronic combined toxicity/
                                    day.                  mg/kg/day.           Carcinogenicity (oral)--rat.
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.05 mg/kg/   LOAEL = 50.7 mg/kg/day, based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day..                renal toxicity in males.
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........

Incidental oral intermediate-term  NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = 100..  Reproductive toxicity (oral)--rat.
 (1 to 6 months).                   day.                                      Offspring LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day,
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        based on decreased body weight
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        gain in F1 females on day 70,
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        decreased F2 pup weights,
                                                                               gestation survival, live pups/
                                                                               litter, and increased incidence
                                                                               of malformations.
                                                                              One-year dietary study (co-
                                                                               critical supporting study)--rat.
                                                                              LOAEL = 625 mg/kg/day, based on
                                                                               decreased body weight gain in
                                                                               females during the first six
                                                                               months, with a NOAEL of 62.5 mg/
                                                                               kg/day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = 100..  Reproductive toxicity (oral)--rat.
 days).                             day (inhalation                           Offspring LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day,
                                    toxicity assumed to                        based on decreased body weight
                                    be equivalent to                           gain in F1 females on day 70,
                                    oral toxicity).                            decreased F2 pup weights,
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        gestation survival, live pups/
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        litter, and increased incidence
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        of malformations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inhalation intermediate-term (1    NOAEL = 200 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = 100..  Reproductive toxicity (oral)--rat.
 to 6 months).                      day (inhalation                           Offspring LOAEL = 1,000 mg/kg/day,
                                    toxicity assumed to                        based on decreased body weight
                                    be equivalent to                           gain in F1 females on day 70,
                                    oral toxicity).                            decreased F2 pup weights,
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        gestation survival, live pups/
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        litter, and increased incidence
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        of malformations.
                                                                              One-year dietary study (co-
                                                                               critical supporting study)--rat.
                                                                              LOAEL = 625 mg/kg/day, based on
                                                                               decreased body weight gain in
                                                                               females during the first six
                                                                               months, with a NOAEL of 62.5 mg/
                                                                               kg/day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)      ``Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenic Potential,'' based on increased
                                     incidence of hepatocellular adenomas in male and female mice. Quantitative
                                    assessment of cancer risk using a cancer potency factor is not required. The
                                                 chronic RfD is protective of potential cancer risk.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among
  members of the human population (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to isoxaben, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for
tolerances as well as all existing isoxaben tolerances in 40 CFR
180.650. EPA assessed dietary exposures from isoxaben in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
isoxaben; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment
is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used 2003-2008 food consumption data from the US
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues and 100
percent crop treated (PCT).
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for assessing
cancer risk to isoxaben. Cancer risk was assessed using the same
exposure estimates as discussed in Unit III.C.1.ii.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for
isoxaben. Tolerance-level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all
food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening-
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for isoxaben in drinking water. These simulation models take
into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of isoxaben. Further information regarding EPA drinking
water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at
http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC v1.106)
and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of isoxaben for chronic exposures
are estimated to be 43.6 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and
909 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 909 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

    Isoxaben is currently registered for the following uses that could
result in residential exposures: Residential turf. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumptions: Isoxaben
residential uses constitute short- and intermediate-term exposure
scenarios. For residential handlers, since a dermal endpoint was not
selected, the only route of exposure quantitatively assessed for adult
handlers is through inhalation. For post-application exposures, only
intermediate-term incidental oral exposures for children were assessed
due to the persistence of isoxaben residues in soil. Neither a short-
term dermal nor short-term incidental oral endpoint was selected for
children. Although there is potential for post-application inhalation
exposure of both adults and children, the estimated exposure is
anticipated to be negligible; therefore, a quantitative post-
application inhalation assessment was not required.
    For the purpose of performing an aggregate assessment, the Agency
selected only the most conservative, or worst-case, residential adult
and child scenarios to be included in the aggregate, based on the
lowest overall MOE (highest exposure estimates). For adults, handler
inhalation exposure resulting from the application of a granular
formulation of isoxaben to residential lawns via push-type spreader has
been used to estimate adult aggregate exposure. (The inhalation
exposure was added to background exposure from food and water, and
compared to the short-term inhalation POD.) Post-application risks for
adults in residential settings were not assessed due to the lack of a
dermal endpoint.
    For children, an intermediate-term aggregate assessment was
conducted by adding the incidental soil ingestion exposure, and average
food and water exposure (chronic dietary exposure). The incidental oral
residential exposure value selected for the aggregate analysis is based
on children ingesting soil particles containing pesticide residues
while playing on treated turf. Due to the persistence of isoxaben in
the soil, the Agency used a conservative approach by using the maximum
seasonal application rate for estimating soil ingestion by children
rather than the standard maximum single application rate. This scenario
resulted in the highest calculated exposure levels; therefore, it is
protective for all other oral post-application exposure and risk for
children in residential settings.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found isoxaben to share a common mechanism of toxicity
with any other substances, and isoxaben does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that isoxaben does not
have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No evidence of increased
susceptibility was observed in the rat or rabbit developmental toxicity
studies, but was observed in the rat reproductive toxicity study only
at the limit dose.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for isoxaben is adequately complete to
allow the Agency to assess the toxicological profile of isoxaben.
    ii. There is no indication that isoxaben is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. No evidence of increased susceptibility was observed in the
rat or rabbit developmental toxicity studies, but was observed in the
rat reproductive toxicity study only at the limit dose; however, this
risk assessment is protective of the susceptibility observed at the
limit dose in the reproductive toxicity study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to isoxaben in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post-application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
isoxaben.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
isoxaben is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
isoxaben from food and water will utilize 98% of the cPAD for all
infants less than 1-year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
isoxaben is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account

short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Isoxaben is currently registered for uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to isoxaben.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 6,700 for
females 13-49 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for isoxaben is
a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    Isoxaben is currently registered for uses that could result in
intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined
that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and
water with intermediate-term residential exposures to isoxaben.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 7,200 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level
of concern for isoxaben is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of
concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion in Unit III.A., EPA considers the chronic aggregate risk
assessment to be protective of any aggregate cancer risk. As there is
no chronic risk of concern, EPA does not expect any cancer risk to the
U.S. population from aggregate exposure to isoxaben.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to isoxaben residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate residue analytical method (RAM) utilizing liquid
chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection (LC/MS/MS), GRM
02.26.S.1 (a revision of GRM 02.26), is available for enforcement of
isoxaben residues in crop commodities.
    The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry
Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD
20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established any MRLs for isoxaben.

C. Response to Comments

    Seven comments were received in response to the notice of filing.
All of the comments were general in nature, not specific to the
chemical isoxaben. They included statements such as ``I am not in favor
of relaxing requirements on pesticides,'' ``I am opposed to this
proposal,'' and ``My body doesn't live well on pesticides.''
    The Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides
should be banned on agricultural crops; however, the existing legal
framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when persons
seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that the
pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. These
citizens' comments appear to be directed at the underlying statute and
not EPA's implementation of it; the citizens have made no contention
that EPA has acted in violation of the statutory framework nor have
they provided any specific information or allegation that would support
a finding that these tolerances are unsafe.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of isoxaben
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on apple at 0.01 ppm;
the bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.01 ppm; the fruit, small, vine
climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F at 0.01 ppm; and the
nut, tree, group 14-12 at 0.02 ppm. In addition, the following existing
tolerances are removed since they are superseded by the new tolerances:
Grape, nut, tree, group 14; and pistachio.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771,
entitled ``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not

have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on
the relationship between the national government and the States or
tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined
that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not
impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as
described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    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 (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: January 19, 2018.
Donna S. Davis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.650, revise the table in paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.650   Isoxaben; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almond, hulls...........................................            0.40
Apple...................................................            0.01
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B...............................            0.01
Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit,                0.01
 subgroup 13-07F........................................
Nut, tree, group 14-12..................................            0.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-02346 Filed 2-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P