[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 67 (Thursday, April 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17980-17981]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7973]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61825; File No. SR-ISE-2010-23]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Amending the Direct Edge ECN Fee Schedule

April 1, 2010.
    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 March 24, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the 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 proposes to amend Direct Edge ECN's (``DECN'') fee
schedule for ISE Members \3\ to (i) reflect pass through charges of
other market centers; and (ii) make typographical and clarifying
changes. All of the changes described herein are applicable to ISE
Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ References to ISE Members in this filing refer to DECN
Subscribers who are ISE Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All of the changes described herein are applicable to ISE Members.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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
    DECN, a facility of ISE, operates two trading platforms, EDGX and
EDGA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This fee filing relates to the trading facility operated by
ISE and not EDGA Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc. Direct Edge
ECN LLC (EDGA and EDGX) will cease to operate in its capacity as an
electronic communications network following the commencement of
operations of EDGA Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc. as
national securities exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In SR-ISE-2009-57,\5\ the Exchange adopted a fee of $0.0024 per
share for securities priced at or above $1.00 which add liquidity to
LavaFlow ECN (``LavaFlow'') and are routed from either EDGX or EDGA.
Such a strategy is deemed a ROLF routing strategy, which is a
destination specific routing strategy that will first sweep the EDGA or
EDGX order book before being delivered to LavaFlow. A conforming
amendment was made to the fee schedule to yield an ``M'' flag to
account for this fee. Conversely, for liquidity that is routed through
either EDGA or EDGX and removes liquidity from LavaFlow, the Exchange
adopted a fee for ISE members of $0.0029 per share for securities
priced at or above $1.00. Such situation will yield a flag of ``U.''
However, if an ISE member posts an average of 50,000 shares or more
using a ROLF routing strategy, yielding flag M, then such ISE member's
fee, when removing liquidity from LavaFlow, will decrease to $0.0022
per share and yield flag U.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60442 (August 5,
2009), 74 FR 40249 (August 11, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, because the Exchange proposes to pass through to Exchange
members the actual transaction fees assessed by away markets, the
Exchange is proposing to amend its fees schedule to reflect LavaFlow's
increase in fees. Effective March 1, 2010, LavaFlow increased its fees
and thresholds for meeting the above-described tier. Members that
remove liquidity from LavaFlow if the Member's attributable MPID
executes a minimum of 100,000 shares (instead of 50,000 shares
currently) average daily volume using strategy ROLF (yielding Flag M)
will now be charged $0.0023 per share (instead of $0.0022 per share
currently). The Exchange is proposing to pass through this change to
its members by reflecting it in footnote 6 on the fee schedule.
    Secondly, effective April 1, 2010, the Nasdaq Stock Market updated
its transaction fee schedule to introduce a unified removal rate
($0.0030 per share executed) for all U.S. equities, across Tapes A, B,
and C.\6\ As a result of this proposed change, the Exchange is
proposing to make a conforming change to delete footnote number 8 on
the ``2'' flag and re-number it as footnote number 7 since the Nasdaq
Stock Market no longer differentiates its removal rate across Tapes A,
B, and C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Equity Trader Alert 2010-12 (effective April 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make the following typographical
and clarifying changes to the schedule: (i) On flag H, for EDGA, 0.001
is proposed to be changed to read ``0.0010'' to conform the numbering
with the other fees on the schedule (emphasis added); (ii) in footnote
number 6, delete an additional parenthesis at the end of the phrase
``(yielding Flag U)''.
    The changes discussed in this filing will become operative on April
1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and other persons using its
facilities. ISE notes that DECN operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing
venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be

excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive pricing
structure designed to incent market participants to direct their order
flow to DECN. Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed rates
are equitable in that they apply uniformly to all Members and provide
higher rebates for higher volume thresholds, resulting from lower
administrative costs. ISE believes the fees and credits remain
competitive with those charged by other venues and therefore continue
to be reasonable and equitably allocated to those members that opt to
direct orders to DECN rather than competing venues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \10\ thereunder. At any
time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the
Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the
Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2010-23 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-23. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\11\ 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
ISE. 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-ISE-
2010-23 and should be submitted on or before April 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on ISE's
Web site at http://www.ise.com, on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.sec.gov, at ISE, and at the Commission's Public Reference
Room.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-7973 Filed 4-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31270-31272]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11644]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77821; File No. SR-ISE-2016-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Amend the Schedule of Fees

May 12, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on May 2, 2016, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change, as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared by the
self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to eliminate Priority Customer complex order
rebates for certain ``net zero'' complex orders. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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
    Currently, the Exchange provides rebates to Priority Customer \3\
complex orders that trade with non-Priority Customer complex orders in
the complex order book or trade with quotes and orders on the regular
order book. Rebates are tiered based on a member's average daily volume
(``ADV'') executed during a given month as follows: 0 to 29,999
contracts (``Tier 1''), 30,000 to 59,999 contracts (``Tier 2''), 60,000
to 99,999 contracts (``Tier 3''), 100,000 to 149,999 (``Tier 4''),
150,000 to 199,999 contracts (``Tier 5''), and 200,000 or more
contracts (``Tier 6''). In Select Symbols the rebate is $0.30 per
contract for Tier 1, $0.35 per contract for Tier 2, $0.41 per contract
for Tier 3, $0.44 per contract for Tier 4, $0.46 per contract for Tier
5, and $0.47 per contract for Tier 6. In Non-Select Symbols the rebate
is $0.63 per contract for Tier 1, $0.71 per contract for Tier 2, $0.79
per contract for Tier 3, $0.81 per contract for Tier 4, $0.83 per
contract for Tier 5, and $0.84 per contract for Tier 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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 ISE Rule 100(a)(37A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, a market participant has been entering a large volume of
valueless complex orders that trade at a net price at or near $0.00
(i.e., ``net zero'' complex orders) with the sole intention of earning
a rebate.\4\ While these complex orders would generally not find a
counterparty in the complex order book, they may leg in to the regular
order book where they are typically executed by Market Makers \5\ on
the individual legs. The fee that Market Makers quoting in Select
Symbols pay when a complex order legs into their quote is substantially
higher than their fee or rebate for regular orders that trade against
their quotes. In particular, a Market Maker providing liquidity on the
individual leg would typically pay a maker fee of only $0.10 per
contract,\6\ or in the case of Market Makers that achieve Market Maker
Plus status,\7\ would earn a maker rebate

ranging from $0.10 per contract to $0.22 per contract. When trading
against a Priority Customer complex order that legs in from the complex
order book, however, that same Market Maker is charged a maker fee of
$0.30 per contract.\8\ In Non-Select Symbols, Market Makers pay a fee
of $0.25 per contract subject to certain tier discounts,\9\ or $0.20
per contract for orders sent by an Electronic Access Member.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For example, a market participant could enter a ``net zero''
complex order that buys 500 contracts of the $193 March 6, 2016 SPY
Put at a price of $0.03 and sells 500 contracts of the $193.50 March
6, 2016 SPY Put at a price of $0.03 for a net price of $0.00.
    \5\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to ``Competitive Market
Makers'' and ``Primary Market Makers'' collectively. See ISE Rule
100(a)(25).
    \6\ This maker fee also applies to Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm
Proprietary/Broker Dealer and Professional Customer orders in Select
Symbols. Priority Customer orders are not charged a maker fee in
Select Symbols for orders entered on the regular order book.
    A ``Non-ISE Market Maker'' is a market maker as defined in
Section 3(a)(38) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
registered in the same options class on another options exchange.
    A ``Firm Proprietary'' order is an order submitted by a member
for its own proprietary account.
    A ``Broker-Dealer'' order is an order submitted by a member for
a broker-dealer account that is not its own proprietary account.
    A ``Professional Customer'' is a person or entity that is not a
broker/dealer and is not a Priority Customer.
    \7\ A Market Maker Plus is a Market Maker who is on the National
Best Bid or National Best Offer a specified percentage of the time
for 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 in each of the front two expiration
months. The specified percentage is at least 80% but lower than 85%
of the time for Tier 1, at least 85% but lower than 95% of the time
for Tier 2, and at least 95% of the time for Tier 3. A Market
Maker's single best and single worst quoting days each month based
on the front two expiration months, on a per symbol basis, will be
excluded in calculating whether a Market Maker qualifies for this
rebate, if doing so will qualify a Market Maker for the rebate.
    \8\ This higher maker fee for trading against a Priority
Customer complex order that legs in to the regular order book also
applies to Non-ISE Market Maker orders.
    \9\ See Schedule of Fees, Section IV.C.
    \10\ There is no fee difference in Non-Select Symbols for
trading against Priority Customer complex orders that leg in to the
regular order book. Non-ISE Market Maker, Firm Proprietary/Broker-
Dealer and Professional Customer orders in Non-Select Symbols are
charged a fee of $0.72 per contract. Priority Customer orders are
not charged a fee in Non-Select symbols for orders entered on the
regular order book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By entering essentially valueless complex orders, this market
participant or others employing the same strategy are able to recover
rebates for essentially non-economic trades at the expense of the
Exchange and the market participants on the other side of the trade.
This behavior is a form of rebate arbitrage, and the Exchange believes
that it is in the best interest of the Exchange and its members to
remove the incentives that promote this activity. The Exchange
therefore proposes to eliminate Priority Customer rebates for ``net
zero'' complex orders that are entered on behalf of originating market
participants that execute an ADV of at least 10,000 ``net zero''
complex orders in a given month. For purposes of determining which
complex orders qualify as ``net zero'' the Exchange will count all
complex orders that leg in to the regular order book and are executed
at a net price that is within a range of $0.01 credit and $0.01 debit.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in particular, in that it is designed
to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable
and equitable as it is designed to remove financial incentives for
market participants to engage in rebate arbitrage by entering ``net
zero'' complex orders on the Exchange that do not have any economic
substance. As explained above, Priority Customer complex orders,
including ``net zero'' complex orders that leg in to the regular order
book, are currently paid significant rebates by the Exchange, which are
funded in part by charging higher fees to the market participants that
trade against these orders. The Exchange believes that eliminating the
rebate provided to ``net zero'' complex orders will discourage market
participants from entering these valueless orders, which are entered
for the sole purpose of earning a rebate. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed rule change is not unfairly discriminatory as it is
designed to stop market participants from taking advantage of Exchange
rebates by entering orders that lack economic substance. The Exchange
is proposing to eliminate Priority Customer complex order rebates for
all market participants that enter a large number of ``net zero''
complex orders. To the extent that those market participants enter
legitimate complex orders, however, they will continue to receive the
same rebates that they do today. In addition, market participants that
enter an insubstantial volume of ``net zero'' complex orders will also
continue to receive rebates. The Exchange does not believe that it is
unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer rebates to firms that do
not hit the proposed ``net zero'' ADV threshold as this more limited
trading activity is not indicative of rebate arbitrage.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\13\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on intermarket or intramarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed
rule change is designed to eliminate the ability for certain market
participants to engage in rebate arbitrage to the detriment of the
Exchange and its members. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow
to competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and rebates to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes reflect this
competitive environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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 \14\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\15\ because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 No. SR-ISE-2016-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2016-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. 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-ISE-2016-13 and should be
submitted by June 8, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2016-11644 Filed 5-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 48111-48112]
[DOCID:fr21se09-85]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60661; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2009-083]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend IM-2110-4 To Reflect
Changes to a Corresponding FINRA Rule

September 11, 2009.
    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 September 1, 2009, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NASDAQ'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-
controversial rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\
which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to amend NASDAQ
Rule IM-2110-4 to reflect recent changes to a corresponding rule of the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA''). NASDAQ will
implement the proposed rule change thirty days after the date of the
filing. The text of the proposed rule change is available at http://
nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. 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
    Many of NASDAQ's rules are based on rules of FINRA (formerly the
National Association of Securities Dealers (``NASD'')). During 2008,
FINRA embarked on an extended process of moving rules formerly
designated as ``NASD Rules'' into a consolidated FINRA rulebook. In
most cases, FINRA has renumbered these rules, and in some cases has
substantively amended them. Accordingly, NASDAQ also proposes to
initiate a process of modifying its rulebook to ensure that NASDAQ
rules corresponding to FINRA/NASD rules continue to mirror them as
closely as practicable. In some cases, it will not be possible for the
rule numbers of NASDAQ rules to mirror corresponding FINRA rules,
because existing or planned NASDAQ rules make use of those numbers.
However, wherever possible, NASDAQ plans to update its rules to reflect
changes to corresponding FINRA rules.
    This filing addresses NASDAQ IM-2110-04, which bars trading ahead
of research reports and which formerly corresponded to NASD IM-2110-04.
In SR-FINRA-2008-054,\4\ FINRA redesignated that rule as FINRA Rule
5280 and made substantive amendments to strengthen and simplify the
rule. Notably, the amended FINRA rule requires FINRA members to
establish, maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably
designed to restrict or limit the flow of information between research
department personnel or other persons with knowledge of the content or
timing of a research report, and trading department personnel. Such
policies and procedures had formerly been recommended but not required.
NASDAQ is adopting the new FINRA rule in full (with minor modifications
to reflect limits on its jurisdiction to regulate non-NASDAQ conduct),
but is continuing to designate its rule as IM-2110-04 in order to
maintain unused numbers of the 5000 Series of the NASDAQ Rules for
possible future use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59254 (January 15,
2009), 74 FR 4271 (January 23, 2009) (SR-FINRA-2008-054).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with

the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\5\ in general, and with
Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and 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 proposed
changes will conform NASDAQ IM-2110-04 to recent changes made to a
corresponding FINRA rule, to promote application of consistent
regulatory standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-083 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-083. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2009-083 and should
be submitted on or before October 13, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22681 Filed 9-18-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738 R 03 002 Environmental Protection and Toxic Substances May 29, 2003 Agency ( 7508C)

Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED)

Dinocap Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Dinocap List B Case 2200 3 May 29, 2003 This document explains the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's ( hereafter referred to as EPA or " the Agency") reregistration eligibility decision ( RED) for dinocap which consists of a voluntary cancellation of all products registered in the U. S. Because the registrant, Dow AgroSciences, LLC ( DAS) has expressed interest in retaining existing tolerances for apples and grapes for import purposes, this document presents only a dietary risk assessment for those uses and specifically addresses the data requirements for support of the import tolerances. The following RED document provides background information on the pesticide registration, reregistration and tolerance reassessment, an overview of the uses and health effects associated with dinocap and a summary of what data are required to support the tolerances on apples and grapes imported into the U. S., in the absence of a U. S. registration.

I. Introduction In 1988, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA) was amended to accelerate the reregistration of products with active ingredients registered prior to November 1, 1984. The amended Act provides a schedule for the reregistration process. There are five phases to the reregistration process. The first four phases of the process focus on identification of data requirements to support the reregistration of an active ingredient and the generation and submission of data to fulfill the requirements. The fifth phase is a review by the of all data submitted to support reregistration.

FIFRA requires the Agency to determine whether pesticides containing an active ingredient are eligible for reregistration before calling in data on products and either reregistering products or taking other appropriate regulatory action. Thus, reregistration involves a thorough review of the scientific data base underlying a pesticide's registration. The purpose of the Agency's review is to reassess the potential hazards arising from the currently registered uses of the pesticide; to determine the need for additional data on health and environmental effects; and to determine whether or not the pesticide meets the " no unreasonable adverse effects" criteria of FIFRA.

On August 3, 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 ( FQPA) was signed into law. This Act amends FIFRA to require that by 2006 EPA must review all tolerances in effect at the time of enactment. FQPA also amends the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA) to require a safety finding in tolerance reassessment based on factors including an assessment of cumulative effects of chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity. At this time, the Agency does not have sufficient reliable information concerning common mechanism to determine whether or not dinocap shares a common mechanism of toxicity with other chemicals. Therefore, for the purpose of this risk assessment, the Agency has assumed that dinocap does not share a common mechanism with any other chemical. 4 II. Regulatory Background Dinocap was the subject of a Special Review because of Agency concerns about developmental toxicity. The Position Document ( PD) 1 was published on January 9, 1985 ( 50 FR 1119) and the PD 2/ 3 on October 29, 1986 ( 51 FR 39577). Special Review was concluded with the publication of the PD 4 on February 6, 1989 ( 54 FR 5908). In the PD 4, the Agency required that all dinocap labels be revised to include appropriate health hazard statements and to require the use of additional protective clothing and equipment for mixer/ loaders and applicators.

Dinocap, a List B chemical, was the subject of a Phase 4 Review dated January 30, 1991 and a Data Call In Notice ( DCI) issued on September 10, 1991. At that time, the current registrant Rohm and Haas Company ( R& H) had indicated that they intended to amend registrations to drop all food/ feed uses for end use products ( EPs). In the Phase 4 Review, data were required under residue chemistry guidelines pending submission of the required amendment forms and revised labels for all EPs confirming that food/ feed uses had been removed. In their 90 day response to the Phase 4 DCI, R& H requested a waiver of residue chemistry data requirements based on their intention to delete all food/ feed uses from their product labels. The registrant subsequently requested that the Agency retain dinocap tolerances for apples and grapes as import tolerances. Following cancellation by R& H of all dinocap food/ feed uses registered in the U. S., the Agency revoked all dinocap tolerances, except those for apples and grapes ( 63 FR 206, October 26, 1998).

The registration for dinocap was transferred from R& H to DAS on September 21, 2001. On February 12, 2002, DAS requested voluntary cancellation pursuant to Section 6( f) of FIFRA of their U. S. product registrations for dinocap for the products Karathane WD Ag Fungicide and Miticide ( EPA Registration No. 62719 384), Karathane Liquid Concentrate Ag Fungicide and Miticide ( EPA Registration No. 62719 385) and Karathane Technical Ag Fungicide and Miticide ( EPA Registration No. 62719 390). The Agency announced its receipt of the above mentioned cancellation requests in the Federal Register on April 26, 2002 [ OPP 2002 0013; FRL 6833 8]. The Agency did not receive any comments specific to these cancellations; therefore, the cancellation order was effective on October 24, 2002. Because dinocap products have not been marketed in the U. S. for several years, existing stocks are expected to be negligible.

III. Uses Dinocap is a foliar fungicide/ miticide used to control powdery mildew. Dinocap is applied to apples and grapes outside of the U. S., mainly in Europe, the Middle East and northern Africa. There are currently no registered dinocap products in the U. S. DAS, the registrant of dinocap, intends to support tolerances for dinocap residues in/ on apples and grapes to permit legal importation of these commodities into the U. S.

IV. Health Effects The doses and endpoints for dietary risk assessment were selected by the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee ( HIARC) ( memo dated February 23, 2000). The 5 HIARC established an acute toxicity endpoint for females of reproductive age ( females 13+ years old) and determined that a risk assessment for acute dietary exposure is not necessary for the general population. The acute endpoint was derived from a mouse developmental study ( MRID 41313001) based on a slight ( nonsignificant) increase in incidences of cleft palate and eyelids open relative to controls that occurred in the absence of maternal toxicity. The No Observed Adverse Effect Level ( NOAEL) was 4 mg/ kg/ day and the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level ( LOAEL) was 10 mg/ kg/ day.

The chronic dietary endpoint was selected from a chronic feeding study in dogs ( MRID 41065401, Acc. Nos. 247957 & 247959). The NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 0.375 mg/ kg/ day and the LOAEL was 1.5 mg/ kg/ day based on effects on the eye.

The FQPA committee recommended that the FQPA safety factor for the protection of infants and children be retained at 10x for all population subgroups when assessing acute and chronic exposure. The reasons are: ( 1) there is concern for the quantitative and qualitative increase in susceptibility observed in fetuses following in utero exposure in the prenatal developmental studies in mice and rabbits; and ( 2) there is a data gap for the developmental neurotoxicity study in the rat.

The acute reference dose ( aRfD) is 0.04 mg/ kg/ day and the acute population adjusted dose ( aPAD) is 0.004 mg/ kg/ day. The chronic reference dose ( cRfD) is 0.0038 mg/ kg/ day and the chronic population adjusted dose ( cPAD) is 0.00038 mg/ kg/ day. The population adjusted dose is the reference dose divided by the FQPA safety factor.

The Agency has classified dinocap as a Group E " not likely" carcinogen. It was negative for inducing mutations in all studies of the standard mutagenicity battery except the Ames test. In Ames studies, dinocap was weakly positive at best and only at high doses.

For more detailed information on the potential health effects associated with dinocap, please refer to the " Dinocap Toxicology Chapter for the RED," dated April 18, 2000, which is available on the Agency's web page at http:// www. cfpub. epa. gov/ oppref/ rereg/ status. cfm? show= rereg and in the Public Docket.

V. Dietary Risk Assessment Acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted to determine the dietary exposure estimates associated with the use of dinocap in/ on apples and grapes to support the RED. The qualitative nature of the residue in plants and animals are not adequately understood and no acceptable magnitude of the residue or processing data in/ on imported apples or grapes are currently available. Therefore, the dietary risk assessment was conducted two ways, using the current tolerances of 0.1 ppm and using Maximum Residue Limits ( MRLs) recommended by the Joint FAO/ WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues ( JMPR). There are European data which have been reviewed by the JMPR. The JMPR proposes MRLs for individual pesticides in different food and feed items, and provides advice on the acceptable levels of pesticide residues in food moving in international trade. Residues of dinocap in the European trials were < 0.05 ( ND) to 0.09 ppm in 6 apples and < 0.05 to 0.67 ppm in grapes. In 1988, JMPR recommended MRLs of 0.2 for apples and 1 ppm for grapes.

No processing data are available; therefore, default processing factors were used. Information is available to estimate the percent of the import apple and grape crops that are treated with dinocap. Less than 5% of the apples and grapes consumed in the U. S. are imported and less than 1% of those are treated with dinocap. Thus, the calculated percent crop treated (% CT) for dinocap is 0.05% which has been rounded up to 0.1% in the chronic dietary risk assessment.

Dinocap acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model ( DEEMTM) software Version 7.73, which incorporates consumption data from USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals ( CSFII), 1989 1992. The 1989 1992 data are based on the reported consumption of more than 10,000 individuals over 3 consecutive days and therefore represent more than 30,000 unique " person days" of data.

Irrespective of the residue data used ( i. e., current U. S. tolerances or MRLs), acute and chronic dietary risk estimates are well below the Agency's level of concern for all supported dinocap food uses. Acute dietary risk is < 1% of the aPAD for the only subpopulation of concern, females, 13 50 years old. Chronic dietary risk is < 1% of the cPAD for the U. S. general population and all subpopulations.

For more detailed information on the dietary risk assessment for dinocap, please refer to the " Dinocap Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment," dated November 7, 2001, which is available on the Agency's web page at http:// www. cfpub. epa. gov/ oppref/ rereg/ status. cfm? show= rereg and in the Public Docket.

VI. Tolerance Reassessment Summary There are currently no registered food/ feed uses of dinocap in the U. S. The established dinocap tolerances for food and feed commodities have been revoked except those for apples and grapes. DAS, the basic producer, intends to support tolerances for dinocap residues in/ on apples and grapes to permit legal importation of these commodities into the U. S., in the absence of a U. S. registration.

Tolerances for dinocap are currently expressed in terms of combined negligible residues of a fungicide and insecticide that is a mixture of 2,4 dinitro 6 octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6 dinitro 4 octylphenyl crotonate in/ on apples and grapes at 0.1 ppm [ 40 CFR § 180.341( a)]. Current U. S. tolerances are 0.1 ppm ( negligible) on both crops [ 40 CFR § 180.341].

There are currently no Codex MRLs established for residues of dinocap. However, in 1988, JMPR recommended dinocap MRLs of 0.2 for apples and 1 ppm for grapes. Harmonization of the tolerance expression/ definition and tolerances between Codex MRLs and U. S. tolerances cannot be achieved until the outstanding metabolism and residue data have been submitted. 1 ( N) = negligible residues; however, the Agency is removing the "( N)" designation from all entries to conform to current Agency administrative practice.

2 These commodities were included in the dietary risk assessment for dinocap using the Current Tolerance level. Additional confirmatory field trial residue data are required; therefore, the final tolerance may be revised.

7 Table 1. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Dinocap.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Reassessed Tolerance ( ppm) Comments [ Corrected Commodity Definition]

Tolerances Established Under 40 CFR § 180.341( a)

Apples 0.1( N) 1 To be determined2 [ Apple]

Grapes 0.1( N) To be determined [ Grape]

VII. Data Gaps The toxicology database for dinocap is considered adequate for the current risk assessment. Acute, subchronic and a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats are required based on concerns for the severe effects ( malformations) seen in the developmental toxicity studies in mice and rabbits, as well as for the neurological effects demonstrated in mice and dogs.

There are several data gaps for residue chemistry. Data are required to describe the qualitative nature of dinocap residues in plants and animals. Magnitude of the residue in/ on imported apples and grapes must be addressed with field residue data reflecting the maximum use patterns for the representative formulations in the areas/ countries where dinocap will be sold and used. DAS may not need to conduct all new studies to fulfill these requirements, but may be able to rely on existing studies developed for a foreign registration or Codex MRLs to support the proposed tolerance.

Table 2 below lists the confirmatory data requirements for supporting the apple and grape tolerances for import purposes. These requirements are consistent with EPA's " Guidance on Pesticide Import Tolerances and Residue Data for Imported Food," 65 FR 106; 35069 350 90, June 1, 2000.

Table 2. Data Requirements for Dinocap Import Tolerances.

Data Requirements New OPPTS Guideline Number Old Guideline Number TOXICOLOGY Acute Neurotoxicity Screening Battery, Rat 870.6200 81 8 Subchronic Neurotoxicity Study, Rat 82 7 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study, Rat 870.6300 83 6 RESIDUE CHEMISTRY Directions for Use 860.1200 171 3 Data Requirements New OPPTS Guideline Number Old Guideline Number 8 Nature of the Residue, Plants 870.1300 171 4A Nature of the Residue, Livestock 171 4B Storage Stability, Plants 860.1380 171 4E Crop Field Trials ( Apple & Grapes) 860.1500 171 4K Processed Food ( Apple & Grapes) 860.1520 171 4L A ruminant metabolism study is included in the above list because wet apple pomace is a livestock feed item. In order to waive this study, registrants must convincingly document that it is unlikely that imported apples or wet pomace would be significant feed items in the U. S. or exporting countries and/ or that there are not significant imports of livestock commodities.

Before conducting any toxicology or residue chemistry study, the registrant should submit study protocols for EPA comment if they have any questions regarding study design and conduct. The Agency will attempt to harmonize with international standards to the extent possible.

VIII. Regulatory Conclusion The Agency has completed its reregistration eligibility decision for the fungicide/ miticide, dinocap, which consists of a voluntary cancellation of all U. S. product registrations. Because the registrant has indicated their intention to retain the existing tolerances for apples and grapes for import purposes, EPA has conducted a dietary risk assessment for dinocap. Although there are data gaps, the Agency has used protective assumptions including a 10x safety factor and tolerance level residue values to determine that dietary risk is minimal, less than 1% of the acute and chronic PADs for all population subgroups. EPA finds that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from dinocap use on apples and grapes imported into the U. S. Confirmatory data are required as outlined in the previous section.

/ s / ____________________________________ Lois A. Rossi, Director Special Review and Reregistration Division


[Federal Register: April 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 15577-15578]
[DOCID:fr06ap09-149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0399]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt thirty-seven
individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective April 6, 2009. The exemptions
expire on April 6, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room W64-224,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also
available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

Background

    On February 12, 2009, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
Federal diabetes exemption applications from thirty-seven individuals,
and requested comments from the public (74 FR 7093). The public comment
period closed on March 16, 2009 and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the thirty-seven applicants
and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The 2003 notice in conjunction with the
November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777) Federal Register Notice provides the
current protocol for allowing such drivers to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    These thirty-seven applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 47
years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted
in loss of consciousness or seizure, that required the assistance of
another person, or resulted in impaired cognitive function without
warning symptoms in the past 5 years (with one year of stability
following any such episode). In each case, an endocrinologist has
verified that the driver has demonstrated willingness to properly
monitor and manage their diabetes, received education related to
diabetes management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers
report no other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related
complications. Each meets the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the February 12, 2009, Federal
Register Notice (74 FR 7093). Therefore, they will not be repeated in
this notice.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologist's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the
diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level
of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not they are
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual

medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the thirty-seven exemption
applications, FMCSA exempts Michael D. Akers, Donald J. Altier, Richie
Anderson, Rick M. Bryant, Casey D. Carr, David L. Coggin, Daniel J.
Conner, James K. Dowden, Luis G. Garcia, Gary A. Garrett, Joseph M.
Godinho, Gerardo Gonzales, Darryl B. Goskey, Douglas A. Greve, Edlyne
C. Harrison, Edwin L. Haynie, Darryl D. Hewitt, Mark D. Hoag, James B.
Hodge, Jr., Kevin J. Hood, Charles T. Hughes, Norman G. Jovin, Patrick
H. Junkins, Paul A. Kurimski, Charles L. Martinez, Joseph S. Moore,
Jeffrey D. Moul, Ellis E. Murdock, Richard J. Neeman, Michael A.
Potter, Carson R. Reighard, Frank B. Rivett, Timothy D. Schaff, Jeffrey
A. Scovel, Charles C. Smith, Michael L. Wise, and Richard L. Wright
from the ITDM standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the
conditions listed under ``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued On: March 27, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-7559 Filed 4-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10255-10258]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-67]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0125; FRL-8812-2]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting

 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

 ACTION: Notice.

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

 SUMMARY:  There will be a 4-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to
consider and review a set of scientific issues related to the Re-
Evaluation of Human Health Effects of Atrazine: Review of Experimental
Animal and In Vitro Studies and Drinking Water Monitoring Frequency.

 DATES:  The meeting will be held on April 26-29, 2010, and will begin
on Monday, April 26, 2010 at 1 p.m. On April 27-29, 2010, the meeting
will be held from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted
by April 12, 2010 and requests for oral comments be submitted by April
19, 2010. However, written comments and requests to make oral comments
may be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting
written comments after April 12, 2010 should contact the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before March 19,
2010.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will be held at the Hamilton Crowne Plaza
Hotel, located at 1001 14th St., NW., Washington, DC, 20005.
The telephone number for the Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel is (202) 682-
0111.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0125; by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Instructions. Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0125. If your comments contain any information that you consider
to be CBI or otherwise protected, please contact the DFO listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to obtain special instructions before
submitting your comments. EPA's policy is that all comments received
will be included in the docket without change and may be made available
on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM

you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 either 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 hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for
special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or requests
to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Joseph E. Bailey, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

C. How May I Participate in this Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0125; in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be
submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES, no later than April 12,
2010, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review
the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of
the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after April 12,
2010 should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring
30 copies for distribution to FIFRA SAP.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages that each individual or
group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their
request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no
later than April 19, 2010, in order to be included on the meeting
agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the
date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of
FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting
by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The
request should identify the name of the individual making the
presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent,
and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead
projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP
are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have
been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or
her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP
at the meeting.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.
    4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP
for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of
candidates for each meeting, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the
stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for
service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or
organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as
prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated
for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following
areas: Risk assessment, mode of action analysis (particularly those
with MOA framework experience), frameworks to evaluate human relevance,
pharmacokinetics, neuroendocrinology (hormone-mediated health effects),
HPA axis (corticosterone), immuno- toxicology, epidemiology,
reproductive/developmental biology and environmental sampling and
statistical modeling. Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient
professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be
capable of providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this
meeting. Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position,
address, and telephone number. Nominations should be provided to the
DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on or, before March
19, 2010. The Agency will consider all nominations of prospective
candidates for this meeting that are received on or, before this date.
However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting is a
discretionary function of the Agency.
     The selection of scientists to serve on FIFRA SAP is based on the
function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the Agency's
charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be ineligible to
serve by reason of their

membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or
agency or, their employment by a Federal department or agency except
the EPA. Other factors considered during the selection process include
availability of the potential panel member to fully participate in the
panel's reviews, absence of any conflicts of interest or appearance of
lack of impartiality, independence with respect to the matters under
review, and lack of bias. Although, financial conflicts of interest,
the appearance of lack of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias
may result in disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not
assure that a candidate will be selected to serve on FIFRA SAP.
Numerous qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore,
selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors
including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional
qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific
perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of
experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the
Agency anticipates selecting approximately 15 ad hoc scientists.
    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634,
Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5
CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective
candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit
confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among
other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and
bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will
evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether
there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of
impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the
documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer
review) before the candidate is considered further for service on FIFRA
SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective candidates
will be asked to attend the public meetings and to participate in the
discussion of key issues and assumptions at these meetings. In
addition, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the meeting
minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members participating at this meeting
will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website at http://epa.gov/scipoly/sap
or may be obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://
www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

A. Purpose of FIFRA SAP

    FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review mechanism of
EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) and
is structured to provide scientific advice, information and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-
related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the
environment. FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established in
1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. FIFRA SAP is composed of a permanent
panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the EPA
Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA,
established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists
who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews
conducted by the SAP. As a peer review mechanism, FIFRA SAP provides
comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness
and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members of FIFRA SAP
are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications,
including training and experience, to provide expert advice and
recommendation to the Agency.

 B. Public Meeting

    EPA is undertaking a re-evaluation of the human health effects of
atrazine. The re-evaluation plan was presented to the FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) in November 2009 and involves three SAP meetings
in 2010. The first was held in February 2010 where the Agency presented
its preliminary reviews of several atrazine epidemiology studies on
birth outcomes and described a project plan to evaluate atrazine
epidemiology data from the Agricultural Health Study (http://
aghealth.nci.nih.gov/). The April 2010 SAP meeting will focus on:
    1. A preliminary review of mammalian in vivo as well as in vitro
studies on toxicological effects and modes of action.
    2. Statistical approaches for evaluating monitoring frequency in
community water systems (CWS).
     For the April SAP meeting, the Agency's scientific review of
toxicology studies will focus on those studies used to support the
reregistration of atrazine and new studies available up to January 30,
2010. Any studies that become available after January 30, 2010 will be
integrated into the Agency's weight-of-the-evidence (WOE) analysis
scheduled for review by the FIFRA SAP in September 2010. This WOE
analysis will integrate in vivo and in vitro laboratory studies along
with epidemiologic data and other human information.
     At the April meeting, the Agency plans to solicit comment from the
SAP on the toxicological importance and human relevance of a variety of
effects including findings on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA)
axis, immune system, prostate, brain, and the enzyme, aromatase. In
addition, the Agency plans to discuss the scientific issues associated
with lifestage susceptibility and linking a chemically-induced
activation of the HPA axis to other health outcomes and possible
approaches to use key events in a mode of action in risk assessment.
The Agency will not be proposing updated points of departure or a
complete scientific analysis relevant to the FQPA Safety Factor for
protection of infants and children at the April SAP meeting. The Agency
will consider the advice of the April SAP, however, to help inform
these issues which will be presented to the September SAP. Following
the April SAP, the Agency will continue to review the scientific
literature with particular emphasis on the potential for differential
lifestage susceptibility and the temporal aspects of pharmacokinetic
and pharmacodynamic events. This temporality is an important scientific
issue for the assessment of the health effects of atrazine because the
duration of exposure leading to adverse effects is a critical aspect of
determining the appropriate frequency of water monitoring in CWS, which
will also, be discussed in September.
     As a condition of reregistration of atrazine, EPA required the
registrants to implement a monitoring program in selected CWS,
generally in the corn and sorghum growing area of the midwest. In
implementing a monitoring program, the frequency of sampling is closely
linked to the health effects of concern. If the health effects of
concern relate to long-term chronic exposures, a yearly average
concentration is sufficient. Less frequent sampling may provide
sufficient data for EPA to be reasonably confident that the results are
representative of a yearly average concentration. However, for effects
that can occur after shorter exposure durations, more frequent sampling
may be needed in order to be confident that the sampling has not missed
a high-end or peak exposure that could significantly affect the
estimate of short term exposure. The Agency will be

evaluating the temporality of toxic effects as it conducts this
reevaluation of atrazine and at the April SAP will also discuss
proposed statistical approaches to determine the appropriate monitoring
frequency for different durations of interest.
     The Agency will consider the advice and recommendations received
from the SAP at the April 2010 meeting as it develops the WOE analysis
integrating experimental toxicology and epidemiology studies with
statistical analysis for determining the frequency of water monitoring
scheduled for review by the SAP in September.

C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/
questions to FIFRA SAP, FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and ad hoc
members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be available by
mid-March. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background
documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic
copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that
might be available electronically, at http://www.regulations.gov and
the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap.
    FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its
recommendations to the Agency approximately 90-days after the meeting.
The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP website or may be
obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://
www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: February 17, 2010.
 Frank Sanders,
Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-4540 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 22142]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09680]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9033-1]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 05/01/2017 Through 05/05/2017
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9

    Notice:

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20170073, Draft, USACE, NC, Bogue Banks Master Beach
Nourishment Project, Comment Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: Mickey
Sugg<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170074, Final Supplement, USACE, WV, Bluestone Dam Safety
Modification, Review Period Ends: 06/12/2017, Contact: Rebecca
Rutherford<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170075, Draft, BPA, ID, Crystal Springs Hatchery Program,
Comment Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: Jenna Peterson<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170076, Final Supplement, USACE, MO, Mississippi River
Between the Ohio and Missouri Rivers (Regulating Works), Review Period
Ends: 06/12/2017, Contact: Kip Runyon<PHONE_NUMBER>
EIS No. 20170077, Final, USFS, CO, Upper Monument Creek Landscape
Restoration, Review Period Ends: 06/26/2017, Contact: John Dow 719-553-
1476
EIS No. 20170078, Draft, USFWS, NE., Issuance of an Incidental Take
Permit and Implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan for the R-
Project Transmission Line, Comment Period Ends: 07/11/2017, Contact:
Eliza Hines<PHONE_NUMBER> ext. 204
EIS No. 20170079, Draft Supplement, USFS, WY, Shoshone National Forest
Land Management Plan, Comment Period Ends: 08/10/2017, Contact: Casey
McQuiston<PHONE_NUMBER>

    Dated: May 9, 2017.
Dawn Roberts,
Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2017-09680 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P