\* MERGEFORMAT
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

                                                      OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
                                                     	AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
MEMORANDUM

DATE:  	September 27, 2012

SUBJECT:	Revised Flonicamid Chronic Aggregate Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk Assessments for an IR-4 Section 3 Registration Action on Berry Low-Growing Subgroup 13-07G, Cucumber for Greenhouse Use Only, and Rapeseed Sub-group 20A.

PC Code:  128016
DP Barcode:  D397279
Decision No.: 457726
Registration Nos.:  71512-9, 71512-10
Petition No.:  1E7942
Regulatory Action:  Section 3 Registration
Assessment Type: Single Chemical
Case No.:  NA
TXR No.:  NA
CAS No.:  158062-67-0
MRID No.:  NA
40 CFR:  §180.613

REVIEWER:	Cassi L. Walls, Ph.D., Senior Biologist
            Risk Assessment Branch III
            Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:   Julie Van Alstine, MPH, Environmental Health Scientist
	Amelia M. Acierto, Chemist
	Dietary Exposure Science Advisory Council (DESAC)
            Health Effects Division (7509P)

            Jeff Dawson, Acting Branch Chief
            Risk Assessment Branch III
            Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:	Barry O'Keefe, Risk Assessor
            Risk Assessment Branch III
            Health Effects Division (7509P)

Executive Summary

Chronic aggregate dietary (food and drinking water) exposure and risk assessments were conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version 3.16, which uses food consumption data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA).  This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008.  The analysis was performed to support a petition for tolerances in conjunction with an IR-4 petition for a Section 3 registration for the new uses of flonicamid on berry low-growing subgroup 13-07G, cucumber (for greenhouse use only), and rapeseed sub-group 20A.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization

Tolerance-level residues combined with 100% crop treated were used to determine the chronic dietary exposure and risk estimates.  Drinking water was incorporated directly into the dietary assessment.  The chronic dietary exposure estimates for food and drinking water are below HED's level of concern for the general U.S. population [11% of the chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD)] and the most highly exposed population subgroup, children 1  -  2 years old (28% of the cPAD).

Acute Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization

An acute dietary risk assessment was not performed as flonicamid has no acute toxicological endpoint.

Cancer Dietary Exposure Results and Characterization

A cancer dietary assessment was not conducted as flonicamid has been determined to be "Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity, but Not Sufficient to Assess Human Carcinogenic Potential".

I.	Introduction

Dietary risk assessment incorporates both exposure and toxicity of a given pesticide.  For acute and chronic assessments, the risk is expressed as a percentage of a maximum acceptable dose (i.e., the dose which HED has concluded will result in no unreasonable adverse health effects).  This dose is referred to as the population adjusted dose (PAD).  The PAD is equivalent to point of departure (POD) (e.g., NOAEL, LOAEL) divided by the required uncertainty or safety factors.

For non-cancer chronic exposures, HED is concerned when estimated dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  HED is generally concerned when estimated cancer risk exceeds one in one million. References which discuss the acute and chronic risk assessments in more detail are available on the EPA/pesticides web site:  "Available Information on Assessing Exposure from Pesticides, A User's Guide," 21-JUN-2000, web link: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2000/July/Day-12/6061.pdf; or see SOP 99.6 (20-AUG-1999).

The most recent dietary risk assessment for flonicamid was conducted by Amelia Acierto
(08-NOV-2007, DP Number 343466).

II.	Residue Information

Flonicamid Use:

Flonicamid is a Group 9C insecticide (selective feeding blocker) registered for the control of a variety of aphid pests and the suppression of a variety of non-aphid pests.  Tolerances for registered commodities can be found in 40 CFR§180.613.  The tolerances that are currently being recommended are listed in Table 1, below.  The residues of concern in/on plants are the parent flonicamid and its major metabolites, TFNA-AM, TFNA, and TFNG; and in/on ruminants are the parent and its metabolites TFNA-AM and TFNA.

Residue Data used for Chronic Assessments:

The residue levels used in the chronic assessment were the tolerance levels for plant commodities established under 40 CFR §180.613 and the HED recommended tolerance levels based on the crop field trials for the proposed crops.  The livestock commodity tolerances are unchanged from the previous assessment.  Table 1 presents a summary of the tolerance residue levels used in the chronic assessment.

Estimated concentrations of flonicamid in drinking water from the proposed uses were provided by EFED and incorporated directly into the chronic assessment.

The assessments used 100% crop treated.

Table 1.  Tolerance Summary for Proposed Uses of Flonicamid
Commodity
                              Proposed Tolerance
                                     (ppm)
                          HED Recommended Tolerance
                                     (ppm)
Comments
(correct commodity definition)
Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G
                                      1.4
                                      1.5

Rapeseed subgroup 20A
                                      1.5
                                      1.5

Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9
                                      0.4
                                      1.5
Vegetable, cucurbit, group 9

Processing Factors:

Separate tolerances were established for dried potatoes, tomato paste, and tomato puree based on processing studies.  The processing factor was set to 1.0 for these commodities.  DEEM default processing factors were used for the other processed commodities for which default processing factors are available.

III.  Drinking Water

The drinking water residues used in the dietary risk assessment were provided by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) in the following memorandum: "Drinking Water Assessment to Assess Flonicamid Use on Low Growing Berries Subgroup 13-07G, Greenhouse Cucumbers, and Rapeseed 20A" (J. Hetrick, D396906, 4/25/12).  Water residues were incorporated in the DEEM-FCID into the food categories "water, direct, all sources" and "water, indirect, all sources."

No monitoring data of flonicamid were available to EFED.  The estimated drinking water concentrations from surface water sources were calculated using the Tier II PRZM (Pesticide Root Zone Model) and EXAMS (Exposure Analysis Modeling System).  PRZM is used to simulate pesticide transport as a result of runoff and erosion from an agricultural field and EXAMS estimates environmental fate and transport of pesticides in surface water.  The values generated by the models for drinking water were multiplied by a national crop area factor (PCA), which accounts for the fact that it is unlikely for any basin to be completely planted to agricultural crops.  Ground water concentrations were estimated using the Tier I SCI-GROW Model.  The model and its description are available at the EPA internet site: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/.  Flonicamid may be applied by aerial, ground, or chemigation as per the labels for this product.   This memo only addresses the estimations of parent flonicamid and its major metabolites, TFNG, TFNA, TFNA-OH, TFNA-AM, and TFNG-AM.

Based on modeling results, the estimated concentration of flonicamid and its degradation products is 1.9 ug /L (ppb) for the 1 in 10 year annual mean concentration (non-cancer chronic). This estimate is based on three aerial applications at the rate of 0.089 lb ai/acre to potatoes in Maine using a PCA factor of 0.87.

Both the acute and chronic estimated concentrations for flonicamid in ground water using the SCIGROW (version 2.3) Model are 1.32 x 10[-3] ug/L (ppb) for the combined residues.

The surface water value of 1.9 ppb was used in the dietary assessment because the surface water estimate is greater than the ground water estimate.

IV.	DEEM-FCID(TM) Program and Consumption Information

Flonicamid chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database DEEM-FCID, Version 3.16, which incorporates consumption data from USDA's NHANES/WWEIA.  This dietary survey was conducted from 2003 to 2008.  The data are based on the reported consumption of more than 20,000 individuals over two non-consecutive survey days.  Foods "as consumed" (e.g., apple pie) are linked to EPA-defined food commodities (e.g., apples, peeled fruit - cooked; fresh or N/S; baked; or wheat flour - cooked; fresh or N/S, baked) using publicly available recipe translation files developed jointly by USDA/ARS and EPA.  For chronic exposure assessment, consumption data are averaged for the entire U.S. population and within population subgroups, but for acute exposure assessment are retained as individual consumption events.  Based on analysis of the 1994-96, 98 CSFII consumption data, which took into account dietary patterns and survey respondents, HED concluded that it is most appropriate to report risk for the following population subgroups: the general U.S. population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, adults 20-49, females 13-49, and adults 50+ years old.

For chronic dietary exposure assessment, an estimate of the residue level in each food or food-form (e.g., orange or orange juice) on the food commodity residue list is multiplied by the average daily consumption estimate for that food/food form to produce a residue intake estimate. The resulting residue intake estimate for each food/food form is summed with the residue intake estimates for all other food/food forms on the commodity residue list to arrive at the total average estimated exposure.  Exposure is expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and as a percent of the cPAD.  This procedure is performed for each population subgroup.

V.	Toxicological Information

The toxicity database for flonicamid was evaluated by HED's Toxicology Team on 9/30/2004.  The team selected endpoints and evaluated for FQPA concerns based on the potential hazard and exposure data for flonicamid and determined that there was no need for an additional safety factor for the protection of infants and children.  Flonicamid is classified to be category "Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity, but Not Sufficient to Assess Human Carcinogenic Potential," according to the EPA Draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment dated July, 1999; therefore, a cancer assessment is not necessary.  HED's current toxicology team has reevaluated the endpoints and determined they are acceptable and applicable for risk assessment purposes.

Table 2.  Summary of Dose and Toxicological Endpoint Selection Relative to Use in Dietary Human Health Risk Assessment for Flonicamid

Exposure
Scenario

Dose (mg/kg/day)
UF

FQPA Safety Factor and Level of Concern for Risk Assessment

Endpoint for Risk Assessment

Acute Dietary
general population including infants and children

N/A

N/A

N/A

Chronic Dietary
(All populations)

NOAEL= 4.0 mg/kg/day
UF = 100
cPAD = 0.04 mg/kg/day

FQPA SF = 1x

cPAD = Chronic RfD
               FQPA SF
           = 0.04 mg/kg/day

2-Gen reproduction study in the rat.  Parental LOAEL = 22 mg/kg/day based on increased kidney weights, kidney hyaline deposition, increased blood serum LH (F1 females).

Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)

Classified as "Suggestive Evidence of Carcinogenicity, but Not Sufficient to Assess Human Carcinogenic Potential"

N/A

N/A
UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = Special FQPA safety factor, NOEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, cPAD = chronic population, adjusted dose, Rfd = reference dose, N/A = not applicable.
VI.	Results/Discussion

As stated above, for chronic assessments, HED is concerned when dietary risk exceeds 100% of the PAD.  The DEEM-FCID(TM) analyses estimate the dietary exposure of the U.S. population and various population subgroups.  The results reported in Table 3 below are for the general U.S. Population, all infants (<1 year old), children 1-2, children 3-5, children 6-12, youth 13-19, females 13-49, adults 20-49, and adults 50+ years.

Results of Chronic Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure Analysis

The results of the chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure analysis are reported in Table 3 below.

The chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure to flonicamid is below HED's level of concern for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups.  The chronic dietary exposure estimates are 11% cPAD for the general U.S. population and 25% cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed population subgroup.

Table 3.   Summary of Dietary (Food and Drinking Water) Exposure and Risk for Flonicamid[1]

                              Population Subgroup

                               cPAD (mg/kg/day)

                             Exposure (mg/kg/day)

                                    % cPAD

                                   DEEM-FCID

                                   DEEM-FCID

General U.S. Population

                                     0.04

                           0.004455
                                      11

All Infants (< 1 year old)

                           0.006272
                                      16

Children 1-2 years old

                           0.011236
                                      28

Children 3-5 years old

                           0.008413
                                      21

Children 6-12 years old

                           0.004999
                                      11

Youth 13-19 years old

                           0.003184
                                       8

Adults 20-49 years old

                           0.003864
                                      10

Females 13-49 years old

                           0.003962
                                      10

Adults 50-99 years old

                           0.004270
                                      11
1 The population with the highest exposure is in bold

VII.	Characterization of Inputs/Outputs

The chronic dietary exposure analysis is considered to be conservative.  As a result, HED is confident that exposure is not underestimated to the U.S. population or any population subgroup.  Further refinements could be made; however, they are not necessary at the present time.

VIII.	 Conclusions

The chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted for the proposed uses on greenhouse cucumber, low growing berries, rapeseed, and drinking water.  A conservative assessment was conducted using tolerance residue values and 100% crop treated.  Estimated concentrations of flonicamid in drinking water from the proposed uses were provided by EFED and incorporated directly into the chronic assessments.

The chronic dietary (food and drinking water) exposure to flonicamid is below HED's level of concern for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups.  The chronic dietary exposure estimates are 11% cPAD for the general U.S. population and 28% cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed population subgroup.

IX.		List of Attachments

 Attachment 1: Chronic Food and Water Residue Input File.
 Attachment 2: Chronic Results File.

             Attachment 1.  DEEM-FCID Chronic Residue Input File.

Filename: C:\Documents and Settings\cwalls\My Documents\Cassi\HED\Flonicamid\FLONICAMID050712.R08
Chemical: FLONICAMID
RfD(Chronic): .04 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL(Chronic): 4 mg/kg bw/day
RfD(Acute): 0 mg/kg bw/day  NOEL(Acute):  0 mg/kg bw/day
Date created/last modified: 08-23-2012/09:49:14       Program ver. 3.16, 03-08-d
Comment: CHRONIC ONLY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   EPA     Crop                                   Def Res     Adj.Factors   Comment
   Code     Grp  Commodity Name                    (ppm)       #1    #2
---------- ---- -------------------------------  ----------  ------ ------  -------
0101050000 1AB  Beet, garden, roots                0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101050001 1AB  Beet, garden, roots-babyfood       0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101067000 1AB  Burdock                            0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101078000 1AB  Carrot                             0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101078001 1AB  Carrot-babyfood                    0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101079000 1AB  Carrot, juice                      0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101084000 1AB  Celeriac                           0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101100000 1AB  Chicory, roots                     0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101168000 1AB  Ginseng, dried                     0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101190000 1AB  Horseradish                        0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101250000 1AB  Parsley, turnip rooted             0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101251000 1AB  Parsnip                            0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101251001 1AB  Parsnip-babyfood                   0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101314000 1AB  Radish, roots                      0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101316000 1AB  Radish, Oriental, roots            0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101327000 1AB  Rutabaga                           0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101331000 1AB  Salsify, roots                     0.600000   1.000  1.000
0101388000 1AB  Turnip, roots                      0.600000   1.000  1.000
0103015000 1CD  Arrowroot, flour                   0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103015001 1CD  Arrowroot, flour-babyfood          0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103017000 1CD  Artichoke, Jerusalem               0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103082000 1CD  Cassava                            0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103082001 1CD  Cassava-babyfood                   0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103139000 1CD  Dasheen, corm                      0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103166000 1CD  Ginger                             0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103166001 1CD  Ginger-babyfood                    0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103167000 1CD  Ginger, dried                      0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103296000 1C   Potato, chips                      0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103297000 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)     0.400000   1.000  1.000
0103297001 1C   Potato, dry (granules/ flakes)-b   0.400000   1.000  1.000
0103298000 1C   Potato, flour                      0.400000   1.000  1.000
0103298001 1C   Potato, flour-babyfood             0.400000   1.000  1.000
0103299000 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel              0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103299001 1C   Potato, tuber, w/peel-babyfood     0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103300000 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel            0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103300001 1C   Potato, tuber, w/o peel-babyfood   0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103366000 1CD  Sweet potato                       0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103366001 1CD  Sweet potato-babyfood              0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103371000 1CD  Tanier, corm                       0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103387000 1CD  Turmeric                           0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103406000 1CD  Yam, true                          0.200000   1.000  1.000
0103407000 1CD  Yam bean                           0.200000   1.000  1.000
0200315000 2    Radish, tops                      16.000000   1.000  1.000
0401005000 4A   Amaranth, leafy                    4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401018000 4A   Arugula                            4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401104000 4A   Chrysanthemum, garland             4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401133000 4A   Cress, garden                      4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401134000 4A   Cress, upland                      4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401138000 4A   Dandelion, leaves                  4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401150000 4A   Endive                             4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401204000 4A   Lettuce, head                      4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401205000 4A   Lettuce, leaf                      4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401248000 4A   Parsley, leaves                    4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401313000 4A   Radicchio                          4.000000   1.000  1.000
0401355000 4A   Spinach                            9.000000   1.000  1.000
0401355001 4A   Spinach-babyfood                   9.000000   1.000  1.000
0402076000 4B   Cardoon                            4.000000   1.000  1.000
0402085000 4B   Celery                             4.000000   1.000  1.000
0402085001 4B   Celery-babyfood                    4.000000   1.000  1.000
0402086000 4B   Celery, juice                      4.000000   1.000  1.000
0402087000 4B   Celtuce                            4.000000   1.000  1.000
0402152000 4B   Fennel, Florence                   4.000000   1.000  1.000
0402322000 4B   Rhubarb                            4.000000   1.000  1.000
0402367000 4B   Swiss chard                        4.000000   1.000  1.000
0501061000 5A   Broccoli                           1.500000   1.000  1.000
0501061001 5A   Broccoli-babyfood                  1.500000   1.000  1.000
0501062000 5A   Broccoli, Chinese                  1.500000   1.000  1.000
0501064000 5A   Brussels sprouts                   1.500000   1.000  1.000
0501069000 5A   Cabbage                            1.500000   1.000  1.000
0501071000 5A   Cabbage, Chinese, napa             1.500000   1.000  1.000
0501072000 5A   Cabbage, Chinese, mustard          1.500000   1.000  1.000
0501083000 5A   Cauliflower                        1.500000   1.000  1.000
0501196000 5A   Kohlrabi                           1.500000   1.000  1.000
0502063000 5B   Broccoli raab                     16.000000   1.000  1.000
0502070000 5B   Cabbage, Chinese, bok choy        16.000000   1.000  1.000
0502117000 5B   Collards                          16.000000   1.000  1.000
0502194000 5B   Kale                              16.000000   1.000  1.000
0502229000 5B   Mustard greens                    16.000000   1.000  1.000
0502318000 5B   Rape greens                       16.000000   1.000  1.000
0502389000 5B   Turnip, greens                    16.000000   1.000  1.000
0801374000 8A   Tomatillo                          0.400000   1.000  1.000
0801375000 8A   Tomato                             0.400000   1.000  1.000
0801375001 8A   Tomato-babyfood                    0.400000   1.000  1.000
0801376000 8A   Tomato, paste                      2.000000   1.000  1.000
0801376001 8A   Tomato, paste-babyfood             2.000000   1.000  1.000
0801377000 8A   Tomato, puree                      0.500000   1.000  1.000
0801377001 8A   Tomato, puree-babyfood             0.500000   1.000  1.000
0801378000 8A   Tomato, dried                      0.400000  14.300  1.000
0801378001 8A   Tomato, dried-babyfood             0.400000  14.300  1.000
0801379000 8A   Tomato, juice                      0.400000   1.500  1.000
0802148000 8BC  Eggplant                           0.400000   1.000  1.000
0802234000 8BC  Okra                               0.400000   1.000  1.000
0802270000 8B   Pepper, bell                       0.400000   1.000  1.000
0802270001 8B   Pepper, bell-babyfood              0.400000   1.000  1.000
0802271000 8B   Pepper, bell, dried                0.400000   1.000  1.000
0802271001 8B   Pepper, bell, dried-babyfood       0.400000   1.000  1.000
0802272000 8BC  Pepper, nonbell                    0.400000   1.000  1.000
0802272001 8BC  Pepper, nonbell-babyfood           0.400000   1.000  1.000
0802273000 8BC  Pepper, nonbell, dried             0.400000   1.000  1.000
0901075000 9A   Cantaloupe                         1.500000   1.000  1.000
0901187000 9A   Honeydew melon                     1.500000   1.000  1.000
0901399000 9A   Watermelon                         1.500000   1.000  1.000
0901400000 9A   Watermelon, juice                  1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902021000 9B   Balsam pear                        1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902088000 9B   Chayote, fruit                     1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902102000 9B   Chinese waxgourd                   1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902135000 9B   Cucumber                           1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902308000 9B   Pumpkin                            1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902309000 9B   Pumpkin, seed                      1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902356000 9B   Squash, summer                     1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902356001 9B   Squash, summer-babyfood            1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902357000 9B   Squash, winter                     1.500000   1.000  1.000
0902357001 9B   Squash, winter-babyfood            1.500000   1.000  1.000
1100007000 11   Apple, fruit with peel             0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100008000 11   Apple, peeled fruit                0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100008001 11   Apple, peeled fruit-babyfood       0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100009000 11   Apple, dried                       0.200000   8.000  1.000
1100009001 11   Apple, dried-babyfood              0.200000   8.000  1.000
1100010000 11   Apple, juice                       0.200000   1.300  1.000
1100010001 11   Apple, juice-babyfood              0.200000   1.300  1.000
1100011000 11   Apple, sauce                       0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100011001 11   Apple, sauce-babyfood              0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100129000 11   Crabapple                          0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100210000 11   Loquat                             0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100266000 11   Pear                               0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100266001 11   Pear-babyfood                      0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100267000 11   Pear, dried                        0.200000   6.250  1.000
1100268000 11   Pear, juice                        0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100268001 11   Pear, juice-babyfood               0.200000   1.000  1.000
1100310000 11   Quince                             0.200000   1.000  1.000
1201090000 12A  Cherry                             0.600000   1.000  1.000
1201090001 12A  Cherry-babyfood                    0.600000   1.000  1.000
1201091000 12A  Cherry, juice                      0.600000   1.500  1.000
1201091001 12A  Cherry, juice-babyfood             0.600000   1.500  1.000
1202012000 12B  Apricot                            0.600000   1.000  1.000
1202012001 12B  Apricot-babyfood                   0.600000   1.000  1.000
1202013000 12B  Apricot, dried                     0.600000   6.000  1.000
1202014000 12B  Apricot, juice                     0.600000   1.000  1.000
1202014001 12B  Apricot, juice-babyfood            0.600000   1.000  1.000
1202230000 12B  Nectarine                          0.600000   1.000  1.000
1202260000 12B  Peach                              0.600000   1.000  1.000
1202260001 12B  Peach-babyfood                     0.600000   1.000  1.000
1202261000 12B  Peach, dried                       0.600000   7.000  1.000
1202261001 12B  Peach, dried-babyfood              0.600000   7.000  1.000
1202262000 12B  Peach, juice                       0.600000   1.000  1.000
1202262001 12B  Peach, juice-babyfood              0.600000   1.000  1.000
1203285000 12C  Plum                               0.600000   1.000  1.000
1203285001 12C  Plum-babyfood                      0.600000   1.000  1.000
1203286000 12C  Plum, prune, fresh                 0.600000   1.000  1.000
1203286001 12C  Plum, prune, fresh-babyfood        0.600000   1.000  1.000
1203287000 12C  Plum, prune, dried                 0.600000   5.000  1.000
1203287001 12C  Plum, prune, dried-babyfood        0.600000   5.000  1.000
1203288000 12C  Plum, prune, juice                 0.600000   1.400  1.000
1203288001 12C  Plum, prune, juice-babyfood        0.600000   1.400  1.000
1307130000 13G  Cranberry                          1.500000   1.000  1.000
1307130001 13G  Cranberry-babyfood                 1.500000   1.000  1.000
1307131000 13G  Cranberry, dried                   1.500000   1.000  1.000
1307132000 13G  Cranberry, juice                   1.500000   1.100  1.000
1307132001 13G  Cranberry, juice-babyfood          1.500000   1.100  1.000
1307359000 13G  Strawberry                         1.500000   1.000  1.000
1307359001 13G  Strawberry-babyfood                1.500000   1.000  1.000
1307360000 13G  Strawberry, juice                  1.500000   1.000  1.000
1307360001 13G  Strawberry, juice-babyfood         1.500000   1.000  1.000
2001163000 20A  Flax seed, oil                     1.500000   1.000  1.000
2001319000 20A  Rapeseed, oil                      1.500000   1.000  1.000
2001319001 20A  Rapeseed, oil-babyfood             1.500000   1.000  1.000
2001336000 20A  Sesame, seed                       1.500000   1.000  1.000
2001336001 20A  Sesame, seed-babyfood              1.500000   1.000  1.000
2001337000 20A  Sesame, oil                        1.500000   1.000  1.000
2001337001 20A  Sesame, oil-babyfood               1.500000   1.000  1.000
2003128000 20C  Cottonseed, oil                    0.500000   1.000  1.000
2003128001 20C  Cottonseed, oil-babyfood           0.500000   1.000  1.000
3100044000 31   Beef, meat                         0.080000   1.000  1.000
3100044001 31   Beef, meat-babyfood                0.080000   1.000  1.000
3100045000 31   Beef, meat, dried                  0.080000   1.920  1.000
3100046000 31   Beef, meat byproducts              0.080000   1.000  1.000
3100046001 31   Beef, meat byproducts-babyfood     0.080000   1.000  1.000
3100047000 31   Beef, fat                          0.030000   1.000  1.000
3100047001 31   Beef, fat-babyfood                 0.030000   1.000  1.000
3100048000 31   Beef, kidney                       0.080000   1.000  1.000
3100049000 31   Beef, liver                        0.080000   1.000  1.000
3100049001 31   Beef, liver-babyfood               0.080000   1.000  1.000
3200169000 32   Goat, meat                         0.080000   1.000  1.000
3200170000 32   Goat, meat byproducts              0.080000   1.000  1.000
3200171000 32   Goat, fat                          0.030000   1.000  1.000
3200172000 32   Goat, kidney                       0.080000   1.000  1.000
3200173000 32   Goat, liver                        0.080000   1.000  1.000
3300189000 33   Horse, meat                        0.080000   1.000  1.000
3500339000 35   Sheep, meat                        0.080000   1.000  1.000
3500339001 35   Sheep, meat-babyfood               0.080000   1.000  1.000
3500340000 35   Sheep, meat byproducts             0.080000   1.000  1.000
3500341000 35   Sheep, fat                         0.030000   1.000  1.000
3500341001 35   Sheep, fat-babyfood                0.030000   1.000  1.000
3500342000 35   Sheep, kidney                      0.080000   1.000  1.000
3500343000 35   Sheep, liver                       0.080000   1.000  1.000
3600222000 36   Milk, fat                          0.030000   1.000  1.000
3600222001 36   Milk, fat-baby food/infant formu   0.030000   1.000  1.000
3600223000 36   Milk, nonfat solids                0.030000   1.000  1.000
3600223001 36   Milk, nonfat solids-baby food/in   0.030000   1.000  1.000
3600224000 36   Milk, water                        0.030000   1.000  1.000
3600224001 36   Milk, water-babyfood/infant form   0.030000   1.000  1.000
3600225001 36   Milk, sugar (lactose)-baby food/   0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000093000 40   Chicken, meat                      0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000093001 40   Chicken, meat-babyfood             0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000094000 40   Chicken, liver                     0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000095000 40   Chicken, meat byproducts           0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000095001 40   Chicken, meat byproducts-babyfoo   0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000096000 40   Chicken, fat                       0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000096001 40   Chicken, fat-babyfood              0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000097000 40   Chicken, skin                      0.030000   1.000  1.000
4000097001 40   Chicken, skin-babyfood             0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000382000 50   Turkey, meat                       0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000382001 50   Turkey, meat-babyfood              0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000383000 50   Turkey, liver                      0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000383001 50   Turkey, liver-babyfood             0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000384000 50   Turkey, meat byproducts            0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000384001 50   Turkey, meat byproducts-babyfood   0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000385000 50   Turkey, fat                        0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000385001 50   Turkey, fat-babyfood               0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000386000 50   Turkey, skin                       0.030000   1.000  1.000
5000386001 50   Turkey, skin-babyfood              0.030000   1.000  1.000
6000301000 60   Poultry, other, meat               0.030000   1.000  1.000
6000302000 60   Poultry, other, liver              0.030000   1.000  1.000
6000303000 60   Poultry, other, meat byproducts    0.030000   1.000  1.000
6000304000 60   Poultry, other, fat                0.030000   1.000  1.000
6000305000 60   Poultry, other, skin               0.030000   1.000  1.000
7000145000 70   Egg, whole                         0.040000   1.000  1.000
7000145001 70   Egg, whole-babyfood                0.040000   1.000  1.000
7000146000 70   Egg, white                         0.040000   1.000  1.000
7000146001 70   Egg, white (solids)-babyfood       0.040000   1.000  1.000
7000147000 70   Egg, yolk                          0.040000   1.000  1.000
7000147001 70   Egg, yolk-babyfood                 0.040000   1.000  1.000
8601000000 86A  Water, direct, all sources         0.001900   1.000  1.000
8602000000 86B  Water, indirect, all sources       0.001900   1.000  1.000
9500188000 O    Hop                                7.000000   1.000  1.000

                   Attachment 2:  DEEM-FCID Chronic Results

U.S. EPA                                                        Ver. 3.16, 03-08-d
DEEM-FCID Chronic analysis for FLONICAMID                  NHANES 2003-2008 2-day
Residue file name: C:\Documents and Settings\cwalls\My Documents\Cassi\HED\Flonicamid\FLONICAMID050712.R08
                                                 Adjustment factor #2 NOT used.
Analysis Date 09-27-2012/15:13:35     Residue file dated: 09-27-2012/15:12:49
Reference dose (RfD, Chronic) = .04 mg/kg bw/day
COMMENT 1: CHRONIC ONLY
===============================================================================
                    Total exposure by population subgroup
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                    Total Exposure
                                         -----------------------------------
          Population                         mg/kg             Percent of
           Subgroup                       body wt/day             Rfd
--------------------------------------   -------------       ----------------
Total US Population                         0.004455                11.1%
Hispanic                                    0.004094                10.2%
Non-Hisp-White                              0.004421                11.1%
Non-Hisp-Black                              0.004612                11.5%
Non-Hisp-Other                              0.005475                13.7%
Nursing Infants                             0.004389                11.0%
Non-Nursing Infants                         0.007113                17.8%
Female 13+ PREG                             0.004172                10.4%
Children 1-6                                0.009134                22.8%
Children 7-12                               0.004695                11.7%
Male 13-19                                  0.003124                 7.8%
Female 13-19/NP                             0.003246                 8.1%
Male 20+                                    0.003698                 9.2%
Female 20+/NP                               0.004334                10.8%
Seniors 55+                                 0.004270                10.7%
All Infants                                 0.006272                15.7%
Female 13-50                                0.003950                 9.9%
Children 1-2                                0.011236                28.1%
Children 3-5                                0.008413                21.0%
Children 6-12                               0.004999                12.5%
Youth 13-19                                 0.003184                 8.0%
Adults 20-49                                0.003864                 9.7%
Adults 50-99                                0.004270                10.7%
Female 13-49                                0.003962                 9.9%

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


[Federal Register: February 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 24)]
[Notices]
[Page 6335-6338]
[DOCID:fr06fe09-93]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59340; File No. SR-FINRA-2008-047]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Amend the
Codes of Arbitration Procedure To Raise the Amount in Controversy Heard
by a Single Chair-Qualified Arbitrator to $100,000

February 2, 2009.

I. Introduction

    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') (f/k/
a National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD'')) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'')
on September 18, 2008, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934

(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes
(``Customer Code'') and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry
Disputes (``Industry Code,'' and together with the Customer Code, the
``Codes'') to raise the amount in controversy that will be heard by a
single chair-qualified arbitrator to $100,000.\3\ The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 2,
2008.\4\ The Commission received seven comments in response to the
proposed rule change.\5\ This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The former NASD Rule 12000 Series (Customer Code) and 13000
Series (Industry Code) have been adopted as the FINRA 12000 Series
(Customer Code) and 13000 Series (Industry Code) in the new
consolidated rulebook pursuant to SR-FINRA-2008-021, which was
approved by the Commission. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
58643 (September 25, 2008), 73 FR 57174 (October 1, 2008) (SR-FINRA-
2008-021) (approval order). The FINRA Rule 12000 Series (Customer
Code) and 13000 Series (Industry Code), as set forth in SR-FINRA-
2008-021, became effective on December 15, 2008. See FINRA
Regulatory Notice 08-57 (SEC Approves New Consolidated FINRA Rules)
(October 2008).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58651 (September 25,
2008), 73 FR 57391 (October 2, 2008) (SR-FINRA-2008-047)
(``Rulemaking Notice'').
    \5\ See Stephen B. Caruso, Esq., dated October 9, 2008 (``Caruso
Letter''); Barry D. Estell, Esq., dated October 20, 2008 (``Estell
Letter''); Laurence S. Schultz, Esq., Public Investors Arbitration
Bar Association, dated October 20, 2008 (``PIABA Letter''); David P.
Neuman, Esq., dated October 23, 2008 (``Neuman Letter''); William A.
Jacobsen, Esq. and Seth M. Nadler, Cornell Securities Law Clinic,
dated October 23, 2008 (``Cornell Securities Law Clinic Letter'');
Gregory M. Scanlon, Esq., Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., dated October
23, 2008 (``Charles Schwab Letter''); and Jill Gross, Esq. and
Stephanie Myers, John Jay Legal Services, Inc., dated October 23,
2008 (``John Jay Legal Services Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    FINRA proposed to amend its Customer Code and Industry Code to
raise the amount in controversy that would be heard by a single
arbitrator to $100,000, exclusive of interest and expenses.\6\ The
arbitrator would be selected from the roster of arbitrators who are
qualified to serve as chairpersons. This means that investors' claims
for up to $100,000 would be heard by a public, chair-qualified
arbitrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See proposed amendments to Rules 12401(b) and 13401(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the proposal, parties would be permitted to request a panel
of three arbitrators for claims of more than $25,000, but not more than
$100,000, if all parties agreed in writing to the request.\7\ Claims of
more than $100,000, or claims that do not specify any amount in
controversy, would continue to be heard by three arbitrators unless the
parties agree in writing to one arbitrator.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
    \8\ See proposed amendments to Rules 12401(c) and 13401(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, if the amount of a claim is $25,000 or less, a single
arbitrator is appointed to resolve the matter. If the amount of a claim
is more than $25,000, but not more than $50,000, a single arbitrator is
appointed, unless a party asks for three arbitrators in its initial
pleading. Claims for over $50,000, or claims that do not specify any
amount in controversy, are heard by a panel of three arbitrators.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rules 12401 and 13401. The current threshold for
appointing one or three arbitrators has been in effect since 1998.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38635 (May 14, 1997), 62 FR
27819 (May 21, 1997) (SR-NASD-97-22) (approval order) and NASD
Notice to Members 98-90. Customer disputes are resolved by a single,
chair-qualified public arbitrator or a majority-public panel
consisting of a public arbitrator, a chair-qualified public
arbitrator, and a non-public arbitrator. Industry disputes are
resolved by a public panel or a non-public panel depending upon the
parties to the controversy and the nature of the claims asserted
(see Rules 13402 and 13802).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also proposed to remove the current option for one party
unilaterally to require three arbitrators in certain cases with claims
for more than $25,000.\10\ FINRA believes this is not an efficient use
of resources, as it requires other parties to incur higher hearing
session costs and additional delays caused by scheduling three
arbitrators instead of one. Therefore, the proposed rule would mandate
a single arbitrator in all such cases unless all parties agree, in
writing, to request a three-person panel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See proposed amendments to Rules 12401(b) and 13401(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In FINRA's view, raising the threshold for claims heard by a single
arbitrator would increase efficiencies and decrease costs for parties
and FINRA. Parties would experience reduced case processing times
because of the flexibility associated with scheduling conference calls
and hearing dates with one arbitrator as opposed to three. Parties
would save time in the arbitrator selection process because they would
receive only one list of eight names from which to choose their
arbitrator, rather than three lists of eight names.\11\ This means they
would only research the disclosures and histories of eight proposed
arbitrators instead of 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For example, for customer cases, if the panel consists of
one arbitrator, the Neutral List Selection System (``the System'')
generates a list of eight public arbitrators from the chairperson
roster. If the panel consists of three arbitrators, the System
generates a list of eight public arbitrators from the chairperson
roster, a list of eight arbitrators from the public roster, and a
list of eight arbitrators from the non-public roster. FINRA sends
the lists to the parties along with each arbitrator's employment
history for the prior 10 years and other background information (see
Rules 12403 and 13403).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parties would also benefit from reduced hearing session fees. For
claims between $25,000.01 and $50,000, parties would save $150 per
hearing session \12\ because hearing session fees would be reduced from
$600 (for a hearing with three arbitrators) to $450 (for a hearing with
one arbitrator).\13\ For claims between $50,000.01 and $100,000, the
savings would be $300 per hearing session because hearing session fees
would be reduced from $750 (for a hearing with three arbitrators) to
$450 (for a hearing with one arbitrator). The parties' cost for
photocopying pleadings and exhibits would be reduced by two-thirds.
FINRA would benefit from a more efficient use of its arbitrator roster
since cases for $100,000 or less would use only one arbitrator instead
of three. FINRA's photocopying costs and mailing expenses would also be
reduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``hearing session'' means any meeting between the
parties and arbitrator(s) of four hours or less, including a hearing
or a pre-hearing conference. See Rules 12100(n) and 13100(n). For
full day hearings, the savings would be $300 for claims between
$25,000.01 and $50,000, and $600 for claims between $50,000.01 and
$100,000.
    \13\ See Rules 12902 and 13902.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Letters

    The Commission received seven comments on the proposal, as well as
FINRA's response to comments \14\, all of which are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Letter from Margo A. Hassan, FINRA, dated December 2, 2008
(``FINRA Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most commenters, particularly securities claimants' attorneys and
legal clinics representing claimants, generally supported the
proposal.\15\ Some commenters supported the proposal in part.\16\ One
commenter, a registered broker-dealer, opposed the entire proposal.\17\
Six commenters \18\ supported increasing the monetary threshold under
which disputes would be heard by a single arbitrator; four commenters
\19\ supported requiring the consent of all parties for a three-
arbitrator panel for claims under $100,000; and three commenters \20\
opposed requiring single arbitrators to

be chair-qualified. One commenter noted that the proposed rule change
did not mention any change to the filing fees that investors would pay
to bring an arbitration claim.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Caruso, PIABA, Neuman, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, and
John Jay Legal Services Letters.
    \16\ See Estell Letter.
    \17\ See Charles Schwab Letter.
    \18\ See Caruso, Estell, PIABA, Neuman, Cornell Securities Law
Clinic, and John Jay Legal Services Letters.
    \19\ See PIABA, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, John Jay Legal
Services and Neuman Letters.
    \20\ See Estell, PIABA, and Cornell Securities Law Clinic
Letters.
    \21\ See Caruso Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Detailed Discussion of Comments and FINRA Response

Increasing the Monetary Threshold Under Which Disputes Would Be Heard
by a Single Arbitrator

    Proposed amendments to Rules 12401(b) and 13401(b) would raise the
amount in controversy that would be heard by a single arbitrator to
$100,000, exclusive of interest and expenses. Most commenters supported
increasing the monetary threshold under which disputes would be heard
by a single arbitrator.\22\ These commenters generally agreed with
statements in the Rulemaking Notice that the increased threshold would
reduce arbitration costs and increase efficiency for arbitration
participants by saving them time and money.\23\ Some commenters
suggested increasing the threshold for one-arbitrator panels to
$200,000 \24\ or $250,000.\25\ One commenter opposed expanding the
availability of single-arbitrator panels, stating that the maximum
savings of $600 per day of hearings estimated by FINRA (or $300 per
party per day) are insufficient to justify the rule change.\26\ This
commenter also stated that smaller hearing panels will degrade the
decision making process for FINRA awards, because, under the current
rule, decision making is a collaborative process in which all
arbitrators benefit from one another's viewpoints. Moreover, this
commenter opined that in some cases, one arbitrator's inaccurate view
can be nullified by the arbitrator's colleagues' majority ruling.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Caruso, Estell, PIABA, Neuman, Cornell Securities Law
Clinic, and John Jay Legal Services Letters.
    \23\ See Caruso, PIABA, Neuman, and Cornell Securities Law
Clinic Letters.
    \24\ See John Jay Legal Services Letter.
    \25\ See Caruso and PIABA Letters. The PIABA Letter supported
raising the amount in controversy at the option of the investor.
    \26\ See Charles Schwab Letter.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded to these comments by indicating that it believes
that the proposal, as filed, strikes the right balance between offering
users an efficient and cost effective forum and providing three-
arbitrator panels for disputes that involve greater amounts in
controversy or that do not specify an amount in controversy. By raising
the threshold as proposed, FINRA would be restoring the proportion of
cases heard by a single arbitrator--roughly a third--to what it was
when the single arbitrator threshold was last increased in 1998. In
particular, FINRA expects that the proposal would double the percentage
of single-arbitrator cases from approximately 17 percent to 34 percent.
In addition, by eliminating the option for one party unilaterally to
request three arbitrators in cases with claims of more than $25,000,
FINRA stated that all parties will benefit by increased efficiencies
and cost savings. For these reasons, FINRA declined to amend the
proposed single arbitrator threshold.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consent of All Parties for a Three-Arbitrator Panel for Claims Under
$100,000

    Proposed amendments to Rules 12401(b) and 13401(b) would provide
that a panel of three arbitrators would hear claims of more than
$25,000, but not more than $100,000, if all parties agreed in writing
to the request. Most commenters either specifically supported requiring
the consent of all parties for a three-arbitrator panel for claims
under $100,000,\29\ or implicitly supported it by expressing support
for the entire proposed rule change.\30\ One commenter supported this
provision, and to guarantee its effectiveness, urged FINRA to clarify
that a party may only unilaterally procure a three-arbitrator panel if
at least one of the parties asserts aggregate claims in excess of
$100,000.\31\ This commenter also expressed concern that the proposed
rule could be interpreted to permit a single party to compel a three-
arbitrator panel if multiple parties' claims exceed $100,000 when
aggregated, even if no single party's claims exceed $100,000.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See PIABA, Cornell Securities Law Clinic, and John Jay
Legal Services Letters.
    \30\ See Neuman Letter.
    \31\ See Cornell Securities Law Clinic Letter.
    \32\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded that it does not intend to change its current
practice with respect to aggregating claims. Currently, upon receipt of
a statement of claim and an answer thereto, FINRA staff determines the
total amount claimed by claimants and the total amount claimed by
respondents, and appoints the number of arbitrators required by Rules
12401 and 13401. In doing so, FINRA staff only aggregates a claimant's
claim with another claimant's claim, or a respondent's claim with
another respondent's claim. FINRA staff does not aggregate all of the
parties' claims (e.g., claimants' claims with respondents' claims).
FINRA stated that it will explain in the Regulatory Notice announcing
the rule change how the $100,000 threshold will be applied and declined
to revise the proposal as requested.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requiring Single Arbitrators To Be Chair-Qualified

    Several commenters opposed the requirement that single arbitrators
be chair-qualified.\34\ One commenter noted that the chair-
qualification requirement would make it more difficult for arbitrators
to get the required ``service'' to become chair-qualified, and would
reduce the pool of available chair-qualified arbitrators.\35\ Another
commenter posited that this requirement would produce a small,
insulated pool of repeat arbitrators and undercut efforts to ensure
non-biased hearings through random selection of arbitrators.\36\ One
commenter called this requirement ``a further erosion of investor
rights,'' and expressed concern that chair-qualified arbitrators may be
biased towards member firms.\37\ The commenter also estimated, without
explanation, that under the proposed rule change, it could take ten or
more years for an otherwise qualified neutral arbitrator to become
chair-qualified.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Estell, PIABA, and Cornell Securities Law Clinic
Letters.
    \35\ See PIABA Letter. FINRA Rule 13400 requires an arbitrator
to have served in a minimum number of cases to be eligible to be
chair-qualified.
    \36\ See Cornell Securities Law Clinic Letter.
    \37\ See Estell Letter.
    \38\ See Estell Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded by noting that it is not proposing to amend the
rules relating to the chairperson rosters or the composition of
arbitration panels. FINRA stated that it understands that raising the
threshold for a single chair-qualified arbitrator will result in fewer
arbitrators serving on certain cases. FINRA believes that appointing
chair-qualified arbitrators to resolve claims up to $100,000 would
ensure that parties have experienced arbitrators resolving their
disputes. FINRA also noted that, in addition to completing FINRA's
chairperson training, chair-qualified arbitrators must either (i) have
a law degree and have served as an arbitrator through award on at least
two cases, or (ii) have served as an arbitrator through award on at
least three cases.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Filing Fees That Investors Would Pay To Bring an Arbitration Claim

    One commenter noted that the proposed rule change did not mention
any change to the filing fees that investors would pay to bring an

arbitration claim.\40\ This commenter suggested that the economic
benefits that will inure to FINRA from reduced arbitration costs should
be passed through to public investors in terms of reduced filing
fees.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ See Caruso Letter.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA responded by stating that it considered the effect of the
proposal on all fees imposed by the forum. FINRA indicated that the
significant cost savings for hearing sessions with a single arbitrator
represent the greatest impact of the proposal to users of the forum.
For example, under the proposal the forum fees for a dispute involving
$75,000 will decrease from $750 to $450 per four-hour hearing session.
FINRA has not proposed to amend the initial filing fees, which are
already based on the amount in dispute, and which may be reallocated by
the panel at the end of the case. The Codes will continue to provide
that the Director of Arbitration may defer payment of all or part of
the filing fee if a claimant has demonstrated a financial hardship.
Moreover, parties will continue to be able to request that the panel
consider assessing all or part of any filing fee on other parties in
the case. For these reasons, FINRA declined to revise the forum's
filing fees.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See FINRA Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comments, and
FINRA's response to the comments, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act,
and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a
national securities association.\43\ In particular, the Commission
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\44\ which requires, among other things,
that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. The Commission believes that the proposed rule change
will reduce costs for participants in FINRA arbitration proceedings
with claims of greater than $25,000 but no more than $100,000 who have
their matters heard before a single arbitrator, while preserving the
parties' ability to agree to have their case heard by a panel of three
arbitrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \44\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that FINRA has responded adequately to the
comments regarding increasing the monetary threshold under which
disputes would be heard by a single arbitrator. The Commission agrees
that the proposal, as filed, balances offering users an efficient and
cost-effective forum for disputes of $100,000 or less and providing
three-arbitrator panels for disputes that involve greater amounts or
that do not specify an amount in controversy. The Commission also
agrees that parties in these cases will experience reduced case
processing times because of the flexibility associated with scheduling
conference calls and hearing dates with one arbitrator rather than
three, and that FINRA would benefit from a more efficient use of its
arbitrator roster.
    The Commission also believes that FINRA has adequately responded to
comments regarding the aggregation of claims in calculating whether the
$100,000 threshold has been met. The Commission notes that FINRA is not
changing its current practice with respect to aggregating claims, and
clarifying this practice in the Regulatory Notice announcing the rule
change should help to resolve any ambiguity about how FINRA will
determine whether a matter may be heard by a single arbitrator.
    The Commission also believes that FINRA has adequately responded to
comments regarding the requirement that single arbitrators be chair-
qualified arbitrators. The Commission agrees that appointing chair-
qualified arbitrators to resolve claims up to $100,000 would ensure
that parties have experienced arbitrators resolving their disputes.
    The Commission also believes that FINRA has adequately responded to
comments regarding filing fees that investors would pay to bring a
claim. The Commission agrees that parties will realize cost savings for
hearing sessions with a single arbitrator.

V. Conclusions

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\45\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2008-047) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \46\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\46\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-2531 Filed 2-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 71607-71608]
[DOCID:fr18de07-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29374; Airspace Docket No. 7-ASW-11]

Proposed Establishment of Class D Airspace; Sherman, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class D airspace at Sherman/
Denison, Grayson County Airport, TX. The establishment of an air trffic
control tower has made this action necessary for the safe control of
aircraft within this airspace.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 1, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2007-29374/Airspace Docket No. 7-
ASW-11,

at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public

docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Hall, Central Service Center,
System Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0530; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No: FAA-2007-29374/
Airspace Docket No. 7-ASW-11.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://.

www.faa.gov or the Superintendent of Documents' Web page at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara
.

    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) part 71 by establishing a Class D airspace area extending
upward from the surface to and including 3,300 feet MSL within a 5.0-
mile radius of Sherman/Denison, Grayson County Airport, TX. The
establishment of an air traffic control tower has made this action
necessary. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
controlled airspace for flight operations at Grayson County Airport,
TX. The area would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts.
    Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9R, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It
therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    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
since it improves the safety of aircraft executing IFR procedures at
Sherman/Denison, Grayson County Airport, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Sherman, TX [New]

Sherman/Denison, Grayson County Airport, TX
    (Lat. 33[deg]42'51'' N., long. 96[deg]40'25'' W.)

     That airspace extending upward from the surface to and
including 3,300 feet MSL within a 5.0-mile radius of Grayson County
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on December 5, 2007.
Rick Farrell,
Acting Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 07-6065 Filed 12-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 188 (Monday, September 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 60779]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21374]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP20-1202-000]

Midship Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on September 21, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2020), Midship Pipeline
Company, LLC (Midship Pipeline or Petitioner) filed a petition for a
declaratory order seeking a Commission order holding that if Gulfport
Energy Corporation (Gulfport) files for bankruptcy, the Commission will
have concurrent jurisdiction, under sections 4 and 5 of the Natural Gas
Act, 15 U.S.C. 717c and 717d (2018), with U.S. Bankruptcy Courts with
respect to a firm transportation service agreement, negotiated rate
agreement, and associated surviving terms in a precedent agreement
between Midship Pipeline and Gulfport. In addition, Midship Pipeline
requests that the Commission establish a process in this proceeding in
which to evaluate the public interest implications of a potential
rejection of the agreement, should Gulfport initiate bankruptcy
proceedings and propose to reject the agreement.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene, or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar
pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 28, 2020.

    Dated: September 21, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-21374 Filed 9-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1263-1266]
[FR Doc No: 2016-247]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76836; File No. SR-ISE Gemini-2015-28]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ISE Gemini, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Establish the
Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal Registration
Categories

January 5, 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 December 23, 2015, ISE Gemini, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the
``ISE Gemini'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, of
which Items I and II 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

    ISE Gemini proposes to codify, in the Supplementary Material to
Rule 306 Registration Requirements, the categories of registration and
respective qualification examinations required for individual
associated persons (``associated persons'') that engage in the
securities activities of members on the Exchange. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to 1) replace the Proprietary Trader registration
category

and the Series 56 Proprietary Trader registration qualification
examination with the newly codified Securities Trader category of
registration and the Series 57 Securities Trader registration
qualification examination for Securities Traders respectively and 2)
replace the Proprietary Trader Principal registration category with the
newly codified registration category of Securities Trader Principal and
require Securities Trader Principals to take the Series 57
qualification examination in addition to the Series 24 qualification
examination. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at 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 Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 306 Registration Requirements.
This amendment will replace the Proprietary Trader (PT) registration
category and qualification examination (Series 56) with the newly
codified Securities Trader (TD) registration category and qualification
examination (Series 57). In addition, the Exchange proposes to replace
the Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) registration category with the
newly codified Securities Trader Principal (TP) registration category
for associated persons who either: (i) Supervise or monitor proprietary
trading, market-making and/or brokerage activities for broker-dealers;
(ii) supervise or train those engaged in proprietary trading, market-
making and/or effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer, with
respect to those activities; and/or (iii) are officers, partners or
directors of a member, as described in proposed paragraph (a) to .08 of
Supplementary Material to Rule 306. The Exchange also proposes to
replace the Proprietary Trader Compliance Officer (CT) registration
category with the newly codified Securities Trader Compliance Officer
(CT) registration category for Chief Compliance Officers (or
individuals performing similar functions) of a member or member
organization. This filing is, in all material respects, based upon SR-
FINRA-2015-017 and SR-C2-2015-027.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75783 (August 28,
2015), 80 FR 53369 (September 3, 2015) (SR-FINRA-2015-017) and
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76408 (November 10, 2015) (SR-
C2-2015-027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, Rule 306 requires, among other things, an associated
person engaged or to be engaged in the securities business of a member
to register with the Exchange in the category of registration
appropriate to the function to be performed and to pass the
qualification examination appropriate to the category of registration
as prescribed by the Exchange. Among the qualification and registration
requirements set forth by the Exchange, an associated person who
engages in proprietary trading, market-making, or effecting
transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer must register and qualify as
a Proprietary Trader (PT) in WebCRD.\4\ To qualify as a Proprietary
Trader, an associated person must either pass the Series 56 Proprietary
Trader qualification examination \5\ or Series 7 General Securities
Representative qualification examination. Several exchanges, including
ISE Gemini currently use the Series 56 examination as a qualification
standard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ WebCRD is a secure registration and licensing system
operated by FINRA and is the central licensing and registration
system for the U.S. securities industry and its regulators. The
system contains the registration records of more than 6,500
registered broker-dealers, and the qualification, employment and
disclosure histories of more than 650,000 active registered
associated persons. In addition, Web CRD facilitates the processing
and payment of FINRA registration-related fees such as form filings,
fingerprint submissions, qualification exams and continuing
education sessions.
    \5\ The Series 56 Proprietary Trader Examination is a two hour
and thirty minute exam, consisting of 100 scored multiple-choice
questions. The Series 56 examination is administered by FINRA, but
is not recognized by FINRA as an acceptable qualification
examination for associated persons engaged in securities trading.
Under FINRA rules, associated persons of FINRA members that engage
in over-the-counter securities trading are required to pass the
Series 55 Equity Trader Exam. Nevertheless, as FINRA has recognized,
because the Series 55 and Series 56 are intended to test the core
knowledge required of associated persons engaged in trading
activities as well as self-regulatory organization (``SRO'') rules,
including trading rules that are common across all SROs, there is
significant overlap in the content of the Series 55 and Series 56
qualification examinations. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
75394 (July 8, 2015), 80 FR 41119 (Notice of Filing of a Proposed
Rule Change to Establish the Securities Trader and Securities Trader
Principal Registration Categories) (SR-FINRA-2015-017).
    \6\ See, e.g., BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') Interpretation and
Policy .01 to Rule 2.5 (Proficiency Examinations); Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'') Rule 1302
(Registration of Representatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    .07 of Supplementary Material to Rule 306 further requires that an
associated person with supervisory responsibility over proprietary
trading activities or who is an (i) officer; (ii) partner; (iii)
director; (iv) supervisor of proprietary trading, market-making or
brokerage activities; and/or (v) supervisor of those engaged in
proprietary trading, market-making or brokerage activities with respect
to those activities is required to register and qualify as a
Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) in WebCRD and satisfy prerequisite
registration and qualification requirements, including, but not limited
to passing the Series 24 General Securities Principal Examination or an
acceptable alternative qualification examination. An associated person
who is a Chief Compliance Officer (or performs similar functions) for a
member that engages in proprietary trading, market-making, or effecting
transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer is also required to register
and qualify as a Proprietary Trader Compliance Officer (CT) in WebCRD
and satisfy the prerequisite registration and qualification
requirements, including, but not limited to passing the Series 14
Compliance Official Examination or an acceptable alternative
qualification exam.
Codification of Examination and Registration Requirements
    The Exchange proposes to replace the Series 56 qualification
examination with the newly codified Series 57 qualification examination
for those registration categories where the Series 56 is currently an
acceptable qualification standard. Specifically, with respect to the
Proprietary Trader registration, the Exchange proposes to replace the
Proprietary Trader (PT) registration category with the newly codified
Securities Trader (TD) registration category as well as eliminate the
current Series 56 Proprietary Trader Exam prerequisite and, instead,
include a Series 57 Securities Trader qualification examination in its
place.\7\

The Proprietary Trader Principal (PT) and Proprietary Trader Compliance
Officer (CT) registration categories would be replaced with the newly
codified renamed registration categories of Securities Trader Principal
(TP) and Securities Trader Compliance Officer respectively (CT).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Neither the Exchange's current Rules nor the proposal would
require that a Proprietary Trader or Securities Trader work at, or
be associated with, a ``proprietary trading firm.'' Rather, both the
current Rules and the proposal would require that an associated
person that engages in proprietary trading, market-making, or
effecting transactions on behalf of a broker-dealer qualify and
register as a Proprietary Trader (or Securities Trader) in WebCRD.
Whereas the current rule allows an associated person to qualify and
register as a Proprietary Trader by either passing the Series 56
Proprietary Trader qualification examination or Series 7 General
Securities Representative qualification examination, the proposal
would require an associated person to pass the Series 57 Securities
Trader qualification examination in order to qualify as a Securities
Trader after the effective date of the proposal.
    \8\ As is the case under the current Rules, under the proposed
rule, only individuals qualified and registered as a Proprietary
Trader Principal (TP) (Securities Trader Principal TP)) would be
permitted to supervise a Proprietary Trader (PT) (Securities Trader
(TD)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed rule
change in a Regulatory Circular. Currently, the Exchange intends for
the effective date to be January 4, 2016. Under the proposed rule,
associated persons who have passed the Proprietary Trader (Series 56)
qualification examination and who have registered as a Proprietary
Trader (PT) in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed
rule change, and associated persons who have passed the General
Securities Representative (Series 7) qualification examination and who
have registered as Proprietary Traders (PT) in WebCRD on or before the
effective date of the proposed rule change, would be grandfathered as
Securities Traders (TDs) without having to take any additional
examinations and without having to take any other action, provided that
the associated person's registration has not been revoked by the
Exchange as a disciplinary sanction and no more than two years have
passed between the date that the associated person last registered as a
Proprietary Trader (PT) and the effective date. After the effective
date, an associated person would need to pass the new Series 57
Securities Trader qualification examination and register as a
Securities Trader (TD).
    In addition, associated persons who have either passed the
Proprietary Trader (PT) qualification examination or the General
Securities Representative (Series 7) qualification examination and who
have registered as Proprietary Traders (PT) in WebCRD on or before the
effective date of the proposed rule change, and who have also passed
the General Securities Principal (Series 24) qualification examination
(or have completed any of the alternative acceptable qualifications
requirements as defined in new .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule
306) and who have also registered as Proprietary Trader Principals (TP)
in WebCRD on or before the effective date of the proposed rule change,
would be eligible to register as Securities Trader Principals (TPs),
provided that the associated person's registration has not been revoked
by the Exchange as a disciplinary sanction and no more than two years
have passed between the date that the associated person last registered
as a Proprietary Trader Principal (TP) and the date they [sic] register
as a Securities Trader Principal (TP).\9\ After the effective date, a
Securities Trader Principal (TP) would need to pass the Securities
Trader (Series 57) qualification examination and the General Securities
Principal (Series 24) qualification examination (or have completed any
of the alternative acceptable qualifications as defined in new .08 of
Supplementary Material to Rule 306) and be registered as such in order
to register as a Securities Trader Principal (TP).\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 306(e) (Requirement for Examination on Lapse of
Registration).
    \10\ As part of codifying this rule, the Exchange will include
text .08 of Supplementary Material to Rule 306 regarding the
supervisory responsibilities of the Securities Trader Principals,
which would limit Securities Trader Principals' supervisory
responsibilities to supervision of the securities trading functions
of members as described in paragraph (a)(2) of .08 of Supplementary
Material to Rule 306, and the activities of officers, partners, and
directors of members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes its proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(c) of the Act,\13\ and in particular furthers
the objectives of Section 6(c)(3) of the Act,\14\ which authorizes the
Exchange to prescribe standards of training, experience, and competence
for associated persons. The Exchange believes that the requirements of
the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration
categories and the new Securities Trader qualification requirements
should help ensure that proprietary traders and the principals who
supervise proprietary traders and proprietary trading are, and will
continue to be, properly qualified to perform their functions which
should protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Implementation of the proposed
changes to ISE Gemini's registration rules in coordination with the
FINRA Amendments does not present any competitive issues, but rather is
designed to provide less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance for associated persons and enhance the ability of the
Exchange to fairly and efficiently regulate associated persons, which
will further enhance competition. Additionally, the proposed rule
change should not affect intramarket competition because all similarly
situated representatives and principals will be required to complete
the same qualification examinations. Finally, the proposed rule change
does not impose any additional examination burdens on persons who are
already registered. There is no obligation to take the proposed Series
57 examination in order to continue in their present duties, so the
proposed rule change is not expected to disadvantage current registered
persons relative to new entrants in this regard.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written
comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not 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 \15\ and Rule 19b-

4(f)(6) thereunder.\16\ The Exchange provided the Commission with
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, as
required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the thirty-day
operative delay so that the proposal may become operative as of January
4, 2016. The Commission believes that waiving the thirty day delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will enable the Exchange to have the new requirements in effect at
the same time as the other SROs. Therefore, the Commission hereby
waives the thirty-day operative delay and designates the proposal
operative as of January 4, 2016.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ For purposes of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has 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 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 Gemini-2015-28 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE Gemini-2015-28. 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 Commissions 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. 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
Gemini-2015-28 and should be submitted by February 1, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-247 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P