[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 57 (Thursday, March 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15765-15770]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06632]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77406; File No. 10-222]

Investors' Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment Nos. 2, 3,
and 4 to, and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Grant or Deny, and Notice of Designation of Longer Period for
Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Grant or Deny,
an Application for Registration as a National Securities Exchange Under
Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 Thereto

March 18, 2016.

I. Introduction

    On August 21, 2015, Investors' Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``IEX
Exchange'') submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a Form 1 application (``Form 1''), seeking
registration as a national securities exchange pursuant to Section 6 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'').\1\ IEX amended its Form
1 four times, including its most recent amendment on March 7, 2016. The
Commission is required to review the exchange registration application,
as amended, together with all comments received, and make a
determination whether to grant the registration.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \2\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f and 15 U.S.C. 78s.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 9, 2015, IEX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its Form
1.\3\ Notice of the application, as amended, was published for comment
in the Federal Register on September 22, 2015.\4\ IEX submitted several
responses to comments.\5\ On December 18, 2015, IEX consented to an
extension of time to March 21, 2016 for Commission consideration of its
Form 1.\6\ IEX submitted a second amendment to its Form 1 on February
29, 2016 that proposes to make functional changes to its outbound
router, which had been the subject of extensive public comment as
originally proposed.\7\ IEX submitted a third amendment to its Form 1
on March 4, 2016.\8\ IEX submitted a fourth amendment to its Form 1 on
March 7, 2016.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, IEX submitted updated portions of its
Form 1, including revised exhibits, a revised version of the
proposed IEX Rule Book, and revised Addenda C-2, C-3, C-4, D-1, D-2,
F-1, F-2, F-3, F-4, F-5, F-6, F-7, F-8, F-9, F-10, F-11, F-12, and
F-13.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75925 (September 15,
2015), 80 FR 57261 (``Notice'').
    \5\ See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX, to Brent
J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated November 13, 2015 (``IEX
First Response''); Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX, to
Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated November 23, 2015
(``IEX Second Response''); Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel,
IEX, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated February 9,
2016 (``IEX Third Response''); Letter from Donald Bollerman, Head of
Markets and Sales, IEX Group, Inc., to File No. 10-222, dated
February 16, 2016 (``IEX Fourth Response''); and Letter from IEX
Group, Inc., to File No. 10-222, dated February 19, 2016 (``IEX
Fifth Response'').
    \6\ See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX, to Brent
J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated December 18, 2015.
    \7\ In Amendment No. 2, IEX proposed changes to its Form 1 to,
among other things, redesign its outbound routing functionality to
direct routable orders first to the IEX routing logic instead of
directly to the IEX matching engine. See Letter from Sophia Lee,
General Counsel, IEX, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission,
dated February 29, 2016, at 1. In this manner, the IEX router would
``interact with the IEX matching system over a 350 microsecond
speed-bump in the same way an independent third party broker would
be subject to a speed bump.'' Id.
    \8\ In Amendment No. 3, IEX proposed changes to its Form 1 to
clarify and correct revisions to its rulebook that it made in
Amendment No. 2. See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX,
to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated March 4, 2016.
    \9\ In Amendment No. 4, IEX proposed changes to its Form 1 to
update Exhibit E to reflect changes it proposed in Amendment No. 2.
See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX, to Brent J.
Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated March 7, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(a)(1) of the Act \10\ requires the Commission, within
ninety days of the date of publication of notice of an application for
registration as a national securities exchange, or such longer period
as to which the applicant consents,\11\ to, by order, grant such
registration\12\ or institute proceedings to determine whether such
registration should be denied.\13\ This order is providing public
notice of the significant changes in Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 4 to
IEX's Form 1 and soliciting comment on the Form 1 as amended, while
simultaneously instituting proceedings under Section 19(a)(1)(B) of the
Act \14\ to determine whether to grant or deny IEX's exchange
registration application, as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1).
    \11\ See supra note 6 and accompanying text (noting that IEX
provided the Commission with an extension of time until March 21,
2016).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1)(A).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1)(B).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(a)(1)(B) of the Act \15\ further provides that such
proceedings shall be concluded within one hundred eighty days of the
date of publication of notice of the filing of the registration
application. Under Section 19(a)(1)(B), the Commission may, however,
extend the time for conclusion of such proceedings for up to ninety
days if it finds good cause for such extension and publishes its
reasons for so finding. As discussed below, the Commission believes
that there is good cause for a ninety-day extension of these
proceedings, and is therefore designating June 18, 2016 as the date by
which the Commission shall determine whether to grant or deny IEX's
Form 1 for registration as a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received over 430 comment letters on IEX's Form 1,
many focused on IEX's proposed trading rules and system.\16\ Many
commenters supported IEX's application.\17\ Other commenters either
opposed IEX's application or questioned whether certain proposed
elements of IEX's trading system would be consistent with the
requirements of the Act applicable to a registered national securities
exchange.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The public comment file for IEX's Form 1 (File No. 10-222)
is available on the Commission's Web site at: http://www.sec.gov/comments/10-222/10-222.shtml.
    \17\ See, e.g., Verret Letter; Shatto Letters 1, 2, and 3;
Simonelis Letter; Leuchtkafer First Letter; Leuchtkafer Second
Letter; Capital Group Letter; Southeastern Letter; Navari First
Letter; Navari Second Letter; DV Advisors Letter; Cowen Letter;
Themis First Letter; Themis Second Letter; Oppenheimer Funds Letter;
Murphy Letter; Birch Bay Letter; Healthy Markets Letter; Keblish
Letter; Bowcott Letter; Secrist Letter; Stevens Letter; Oltean
Letter; Park Letter; Crespo Letter; Hovanec Letter; Meskill Letter;
Brian S. Letter; Glennon Letter; Shaw Letter; Upson Letter; Goldman
Sachs Letter; Robeson Letter; Lynch Letter; Budish Letter; Chen &
Foley Letter; Liquidnet Letter; T. Rowe Price Letter.
    \18\ See, e.g., BATS First Letter; BATS Second Letter; NYSE
First Letter; NASDAQ First Letter; NASDAQ Second Letter; Citadel
First Letter; Citadel Second Letter; Citadel Third Letter; Citadel
Fourth Letter; FIA First Letter; Hudson River Trading First Letter;
Hudson River Trading Second Letter; Anonymous First Letter;
Hunsacker Letter; Modern Markets Initiative Letter; Tabb Letter;
Weldon Letter; Markit First Letter; Markit Second Letter; Direct
Match Letter; Duffy Letter; Scott Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the commenters who supported IEX's exchange registration,
several argued that IEX would offer a market solution to address
certain market inefficiencies and conflicts of interest in a manner
that may protect

the interests of buy-side investors.\19\ In particular, some commenters
noted IEX's decision not to pursue ``maker-taker'' pricing and instead
offer flat transaction fees.\20\ Some commenters praised IEX for
offering fewer order types.\21\ Several commenters highlighted IEX's
``coil'' delay (frequently referred to as IEX's ``speed bump''),
discussed in detail below, and asserted that it may help counter
latency arbitrage.\22\ Some commenters questioned the motive of certain
commenters who opposed the proposal.\23\ In addition, one commenter
argued that the coil delay should not be grounds for denying IEX's
exchange application, and suggested that IEX be phased into the
national market system under a pilot program so that the effect of
IEX's access delay on the wider market could be better assessed.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, e.g., Capital Group Letter at 1 (noting the
``technologies and practices to discourage predatory behavior''
including the ``350 microsecond buffer,'' the lack of maker-taker
pricing, and ``simple order types''); Southeastern Letter (submitted
on behalf of a group of undersigned asset managers) (complimenting
IEX's proposed benefits to investors in ``reducing structural
inefficiencies in the market, and offering a more balanced and
simplified market design''); Navari First Letter at 1 (noting
certain features that ``have great promise for the [r]etail
[i]nvestor''); DV Advisors Letter; Cowen Letter; Themis First Letter
(noting that IEX's ``unconflicted investor-friendly alternative''
will ``employ technology designed to even playing fields, rather
than exploit information asymmetry,'' that IEX will be ``a stark
alternative to other stock exchange models that seem to be more
focused on selling speed and data,'' and that as an alternative
trading system, IEX allowed it and its customers ``to achieve best
execution''); Oppenheimer Funds Letter; Murphy Letter (arguing that
IEX's design should ``help to limit and even eliminate the
electronic front running that is central to the problems in the
market today''); Keblish Letter; Secrist Letter; Stevens Letter;
Oltean Letter; Meskill Letter; fi360 Letter; TRS Letter; Lynch
Letter; Jefferies Letter; T. Rowe Price Letter; Liquidnet Letter.
    \20\ See, e.g., Capital Group Letter; Southeastern Letter;
Navari First Letter; Navari Second Letter; Themis Letter 1;
Oppenheimer Funds Letter; Healthy Markets Letter; Abel/Noser Letter;
Goldman Sachs Letter; Liquidnet Letter; Franklin Templeton
Investments Letter; TRS Letter. The Commission notes, however, that
fees are not actually part of IEX's Form 1. Rather, if IEX were to
be approved as an exchange, it would need to submit separate filings
under Section 19(b) of the Act to establish fees that it would
charge to members and others using its facilities. Nevertheless, in
its Second Response Letter, IEX noted that, as an exchange, it would
intend to charge a flat transaction fee. See IEX Second Response at
9.
    \21\ See, e.g., Capital Group Letter; Southeastern Letter;
Shatto First Letter; Navari First Letter; Oppenheimer Funds Letter;
Healthy Markets Letter; Norges Bank Letter; Burgess Letter; fi360
Letter; TRS Letter. But see NYSE First Letter at 9 (arguing that
IEX's proposed menu of order types is not necessarily ``simple'' and
the potential different combinations of instructions for limit
orders is in the hundreds).
    \22\ See, e.g., T. Rowe Price Letter at 1-2; Navari Second
Letter; Healthy Markets Letter at 2-4; Jefferies Letter at 3; Chen &
Foley Letter at 2-3; Leuchtkafer Second Letter at 9; Budish Letter
at 4. See also Burgess Letter; Capital Group Letter; Franklin
Templeton Investments Letter; Michael Schroeder Letter; Leeson
Letter; Lupinski Letter; Oorjitham Letter; Eric K Letter; Grey
Letter; Spear Letter; Baggins Letter; Nixon Letter; Campbell Letter;
Moses Letter; Huff Letter; Kaye Letter; Jean Letter; Gloy Letter;
Givehchi Letter; Kara Letter; Hiester Letter; Benites Letter;
Eustace Letter; Ramirez Letter; Luce Letter; Arnold Letter; Tidwell
Letter; Doyle Letter; Long Letter; Kim Letter; Mannheim Letter;
Oppenheimer Funds Letter.
    \23\ See, e.g., Verret Letter at 2 (arguing that ``incumbent
firms have long sought to utilize regulatory barriers to entry to
minimize competition, and it would appear a number of firms are
presently using the regulatory comment process regarding IEX's
application as a venue to replicate that strategy here''); Crespo
Letter; Brian S. Letter.
    \24\ See Angel Letter at 3-5. The pilot program suggested by
this commenter would be to measure the effect on the market of
protecting IEX's quotation notwithstanding the ``speed bump.'' See
id. at 4-5. According to the commenter, if the pilot caused material
harm, it could be halted, in which case IEX could still operate as
an exchange but without having its quotes protected under Regulation
NMS. See id. at 5. See also Wolfe Letter at 3 (agreeing with the
pilot approach suggested in the Angel Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among the commenters who were critical of aspects of IEX's
proposal, most focused on issues surrounding IEX's coil delay, IEX's
affiliated outbound router and what they viewed as an unfair advantage
to bypass the outbound coil delay, and IEX's proposed order types.\25\
Other commenters did not express a view on whether the Commission
should grant or deny IEX's application.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, e.g., NYSE First Letter; NASDAQ First Letter; BATS
First Letter; Citadel First Letter; Citadel Second Letter; Citadel
Third Letter; Hudson River Trading First Letter; Hudson River
Trading Second Letter; FIA First Letter.
    \26\ See, e.g., Virtu Letter; Healthy Markets Letter; Tabb
Letter; Aesthetic Integration Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of IEX's Trading System

    IEX, which currently operates a trading platform as an alternative
trading system (``ATS''), is seeking to register as a national
securities exchange. Below is a brief description of the proposed IEX
exchange trading platform, including the new aspects of the system
concerning the router functionality where noted.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ For more detail on IEX's proposed trading system, see IEX's
Form 1 and Exhibits, as amended (in particular Exhibits B (the
proposed rulebook) and E (a narrative description of the proposed
operation of IEX as an exchange)), which are available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/otherarchive/other2015.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Order Execution. Non-marketable orders submitted to IEX would be
displayed or non-displayed, depending on the instructions indicated by
the IEX member submitting the order.\28\ IEX would direct an order (or
any portion thereof) that it could not execute on IEX to away markets
for execution through IEX Services LLC (``IEXS''), IEX's wholly owned
single-purpose outbound router, unless the terms of the order direct
IEX not to route such order away.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Proposed IEX Rule 11.220(a)(1).
    \29\ See Proposed IEX Rule 11.230(b). See also Amendment Nos. 2
and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX proposed several pegged order types--primary peg, midpoint peg,
and discretionary peg--all of which would be non-displayed with prices
that are automatically adjusted by the IEX system in response to
changes in the national best bid and offer (``NBBO'') (subject to a
limit price, if any).\30\ As noted below, it is these types of dark
pegged orders--and not standard market or limit orders, or displayed
quotes or orders--that would be affected by the proposed coil delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Proposed IEX Rule 11.190(a)-(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Access and the Coil Delay. Only broker-dealer members of IEX and
entities that enter into market access arrangements with members
(collectively, ``Users'') would have access to the IEX system.\31\
Users would connect to IEX through a single Point-of-Presence (``POP'')
located in Secaucus, New Jersey.\32\ After entering through the POP, a
User's electronic message sent to the IEX trading system would traverse
the IEX ``coil,'' which is a box of compactly coiled optical fiber
cable equivalent to a prescribed physical distance of 61,625 meters
(approximately 38 miles).\33\ After exiting the coil, the User's
message would travel an additional physical distance to the IEX trading
system, located in Weehawken, New Jersey.\34\ According to IEX, the
coil, when combined with the physical distance between the POP and the
IEX trading system (hereinafter the ``POP/coil''), provides IEX Users
sending non-routable orders to IEX with 350 microseconds \35\ of one-
way latency (hereinafter the ``POP/coil delay'').\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ To obtain authorized access to the IEX System, each User
must enter into a User Agreement with IEX. See Proposed IEX Rule
11.130(a).
    \32\ See IEX Second Response at 2.
    \33\ See IEX First Response at 3.
    \34\ See Exhibit E to IEX's Form 1 submission, at 12. See also
IEX First Response at 3.
    \35\ A microsecond is one millionth of a second.
    \36\ See IEX First Response at 3. See also Amendment Nos. 2 and
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters expressed concern that IEX's previously-
published Form 1 lacked specific detail about how the POP/coil
structure would work, including what messages and activity would--and
would not--be subject to the delay.\37\ IEX responded by supplementing
the record through its

first two response letters.\38\ Most recently, IEX proposed a new
approach to outbound routing, which is discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ See, e.g., NYSE First Letter and Nasdaq First Letter.
    \38\ See IEX First Response and IEX Second Response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to IEX, all incoming messages (e.g., orders to buy or
sell and any modification to a previously sent open order) from any
User would traverse the POP/coil to initially reach IEX. In addition,
all outbound messages from IEX back to a User (e.g., confirmations of
an execution that occurred on IEX) would pass through the same route in
reverse.\39\ IEX's direct proprietary market data feed, which is an
optional data feed that IEX would make available to subscribers, also
would traverse the POP/coil.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See IEX First Response at 3.
    \40\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As originally proposed, one type of inbound message and two types
of outbound messages would not traverse the POP/coil, specifically:

    1. Inbound market data from other trading centers to the IEX
system would not traverse the POP/coil;
    2. Orders routed outbound from IEX through IEXS to away trading
centers for execution (as well as reports back to IEX from those
away trading centers) would not traverse the POP/coil (though
execution and transaction reports sent from IEX back to Users would
traverse the POP/coil and thus would be delayed) (as discussed
below, IEX recently proposed a materially different approach to
outbound routing that it intends will eliminate any exclusive
advantages provided to its routing functionality); and
    3. Outbound transaction and quote messages sent from IEX to the
applicable securities information processor (``SIP'') would not pass
through the POP/coil, but instead would be sent directly from the
IEX system to the SIP processor.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See id. at 3-4.

Finally, updates to resting pegged orders on IEX would be processed
within the IEX trading system and would not require that separate
messages be transmitted from outside the trading system, which would
otherwise traverse the POP/coil, for each update.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to IEX, its POP/coil delay, including its application to
some but not all of the message traffic into and out of its trading
system, was originally designed to achieve two main purposes: (1) To
allow IEX time to update the prices of resting dark pegged orders on
its book (whose permissible execution prices are not static, but rather
are tied to the NBBO as IEX sees it through the proprietary data feeds
it purchases from each exchange) in response to changes in market
prices before other market participants can access IEX's resting pegged
orders at potentially ``stale'' prices (i.e., pegged order prices that
had not been updated by IEX when the new incoming order arrived at
IEX); \43\ and (2) to delay the trade acknowledgements IEX sends to
Users, as well as to delay its proprietary outbound data feed that
reflects the occurrence of an execution on IEX, both of which
originally provided IEX's affiliated outbound router with a ``head
start'' as it routes out to access trading interest posted on other
exchanges before other market participants learn about a trade on IEX
and can trade with or re-price that away interest in reaction to the
execution that occurred on IEX.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See id. at 4 (explaining that the POP/coil is designed ``to
ensure that no market participants can take action on IEX in
reaction to changes in market prices before IEX is aware of the same
price changes on behalf of all IEX members''). See also Hudson River
Trading First Letter at 3 (discussing the purposes of the POP/coil
delay). One commenter noted that the POP/coil delay ``has no
impact'' on regular displayed orders, and ``simply slows down the
trade execution process but does not alter the outcome'' for non-
pegged orders. Id. at 2-3 (``Similar to a 100-meter sprint, if you
simply add 350 microseconds to each participant's time, neither the
order in which they finish nor their time differentials will
change.''). Rather, the commenter argued that ``IEX delays all
transparent displayed orders that are critical to price discovery
without altering the outcomes of those orders . . . for the benefit
of hidden, pegged orders that free-ride on price discovery.'' See
Hudson River Trading Second Letter at 4.
    \44\ See IEX Second Response at 14 (``. . . the purpose of
requiring outbound execution messages to go through the POP (350
microseconds) is to prevent `information leakage' or `liquidity
fade' when IEXS routes to other markets'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Outbound Routing. In the three recent amendments to its Form 1,
IEX, among other things, proposed a significantly different approach to
outbound routing.\45\ Rather than initially directing the entirety of a
User's order to the IEX matching engine and then routing away any
excess shares via IEXS directly (and without having to first pass
through the POP/coil delay as it routes shares outbound), IEX proposed
to eliminate this aspect and instead create a new structure intended to
place its outbound routing function on parity with competing broker-
dealers. IEX's latest amendments, which constitute a significant change
from its initial Form 1, are discussed further below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The proposed revisions to accommodate the new routing
process are primarily addressed in proposed IEX Rule 11.510
(Connectivity), as well as in proposed IEX Rules 2.220 (IEX Services
LLC as Outbound Router), 11.130 (Access), 11.230(b)-(c) (Order
Execution), 11.240 (Trade Execution, Reporting, and Dissemination of
Quotations), 11.330 (Data Products), and 11.410 (Use of Market Data
Feeds and Calculations of Necessary Price Reference Points). IEX
also proposed other changes in Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, including
changes to proposed Rule 2.160 (Restrictions on Membership) to
reflect the Series 57 exam; proposed new Rule 2.250 (Mandatory
Participation in Testing of Backup Systems); proposed new Rule 9.217
(Expedited Client Suspension Proceeding); proposed new Rule 10.270
(Disruptive Quoting and Trading Activity Prohibited); changes to
proposed Rule 11.190(a)(3) (Pegged Orders), (b)(8)-(10) (concerning
pegged orders), and (g) (concerning quote stability for
Discretionary Peg Orders); and changes to proposed Rule 11.260
(LIMITATION OF LIABILITY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Grant or Deny the Application
and Grounds for Potential Denial Under Consideration

    The Commission is hereby instituting proceedings pursuant to
Section 19(a)(1)(B) of the Act \46\ to determine whether IEX's Form 1,
as amended, should be granted or denied. Institution of such
proceedings is appropriate at this time in view of the issues raised by
the application, the significant changes proposed in IEX's recent
amendments, and the need for the Commission to provide the public with
an opportunity to comment and allow the Commission to consider comments
received on the recently filed features of the IEX market. Institution
of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. In fact, the
Commission is providing the public with an opportunity to comment to
inform its consideration and decision making regarding the Form 1, as
IEX recently amended it. The Commission encourages interested persons
to provide specific comment on the Form 1 focused on Amendment Nos. 2,
3, and 4.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1)(B).
    \47\ See infra Section IV (Extension of Time for Proceedings).
Separately, the Commission is evaluating whether to revisit its
interpretation of automated quotation under Regulation NMS in light
of comments received on IEX's Form 1 concerning the consistency of
the POP/coil delay with Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As required by Section 19(a)(1)(B) of the Act,\48\ the Commission
is hereby providing notice of the grounds for potential denial under
consideration. Under Sections 6(b) and 19(a)(1) of the Act,\49\ the
Commission shall grant an application for registration as a national
securities exchange if the Commission finds that the requirements of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder with respect to the
applicant are satisfied; the Commission shall deny such application for
registration if it does not make such a finding. In particular, Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \50\ provides that an exchange shall not be
registered as a national securities exchange unless the Commission
determines that the rules of the

exchange are designed, among other things, not to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. In
addition, Section 6(b)(8) of the Act \51\ provides that an exchange
shall not be registered as a national securities exchange unless the
Commission determines that the rules of the exchange do not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1)(B).
    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b) and 15 U.S.C. 78s(a)(1), respectively.
    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \51\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is particularly interested in commenters' views as
to whether the changes set forth in IEX's Form 1, as amended, are
consistent with the Act, in light of commenters' concerns that IEX's
routing functionality and IEXS would have an advantage over other
routing broker-dealers that would be unfairly discriminatory and an
inappropriate burden on competition.\52\ IEX has represented to the
Commission that, under its revised outbound routing structure, IEX's
routing functionality would interface with the IEX matching engine on
the same terms as other Users, including routing broker-dealer members
of IEX.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Several commenters criticized the fact that IEXS would have
received routing information from the IEX system outside of, and not
subject to, the POP/coil delay while other IEX members' receipt of
transaction and quotation information from the IEX system would have
been subject to the POP/coil delay. See, e.g., BATS First Letter at
4-5; BATS Second Letter at 3-6; BATS Third Letter at 3; NYSE First
Letter at 3-5; NYSE Second Letter at 3; Citadel First Letter at 6-7;
Citadel Second Letter at 5-6; Citadel Third Letter at 1-2; FIA First
Letter at 4-5; Tabb Letter at 2-3; Hudson River Trading First Letter
at 3-7; Hudson River Trading Second Letter at 2-5; Markit First
Letter at 1-3; Markit Second Letter at 3-4 and 6; Hunsacker Letter;
Weldon Letter. In other words, the concern expressed was that IEXS
would have been able to route to away markets the unexecuted portion
of any marketable order not fully executed at IEX 350 microseconds
before other routing broker-dealers learned that an execution
occurred on IEX. Some commenters argued that this arrangement would
provide an unfair competitive advantage to IEX and the routing
broker that it owns in that IEXS would have faster access to
information from the IEX trading system than other members of IEX,
including those who offer routing services that compete with IEXS,
and thus IEXS would have the unique ability over other routing
brokers to most quickly and efficiently route to away markets. See,
e.g., BATS First Letter at 4-5; BATS Second Letter at 3-6; BATS
Third Letter at 3; NYSE First Letter at 3-5; NYSE Second Letter at
3; Citadel First Letter at 6-7; Citadel Second Letter at 5-6;
Citadel Third Letter at 1-2; FIA First Letter at 4-5; Tabb Letter at
2-3; Hudson River Trading First Letter at 3-7; Hudson River Trading
Second Letter at 4-5; Markit First Letter at 1-3; Markit Second
Letter at 3-4 and 6; Weldon Letter. Other commenters opined that the
advantage provided to IEXS would effectively force brokers to use
IEXS because other third party routing brokers would be
competitively disadvantaged by their inability to similarly bypass
the POP/coil delay. See, e.g., Tabb Letter at 2; Citadel Third
Letter at 3.
    \53\ See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX, to Brent
J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated February 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed new outbound routing structure, which IEX filed with
the Commission over a period ending in early March, represents a
material departure from the original design that IEX proposed in its
original Form 1 and therefore warrants further review and consideration
by the Commission, as informed by further public comment.\54\ IEX has
proposed a number of changes to its rulebook to effectuate this new
design. The Commission believes that the protection of investors and
the public interest are best served by affording the public the
opportunity to review and comment on this modified proposal from IEX,
particularly in light of the large number of comments the Commission
received that raised questions about whether IEX's proposed rules were
consistent with the requirements of the Act. By publishing notice of,
and soliciting comment on, IEX's Form 1, as most recently amended by
Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 4, and simultaneously instituting proceedings,
the Commission seeks public input on whether IEX's proposed new
outbound routing structure, as reflected in its new proposed amended
rules, is consistent with the Act, and accordingly, whether IEX should
be registered as a national securities exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In particular, the recently-filed amendments to IEX's Form
1 introduce the concept of a new POP/coil delay between IEX's
routing logic (which is located within IEX's system) and IEX's book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission previously has stated that an exchange-affiliated
outbound router, as a ``facility'' of the exchange, will be subject to
the exchange's and the Commission's regulatory oversight, and that the
exchange will be responsible for ensuring that the affiliated outbound
routing function is operated consistent with Section 6 of the Act and
the exchange's rules.\55\ For example, in approving an exchange with an
affiliated outbound routing broker, the Commission previously noted
that ``[a] conflict of interest would arise if the national securities
exchange (or an affiliate) provided advantages to its broker-dealer
that are not available to other members.'' \56\ The Commission further
explained that ``advantages, such as greater access to information,
improved speed of execution, or enhanced operational capabilities in
dealing with the exchange, might constitute unfair discrimination under
the Act.'' \57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62716 (Aug.
13, 2010), 75 FR 51295 (August 19, 2010) (granting BATS Y Exchange's
request to register as a national securities exchange).
    \56\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44983 (October 25,
2001), 66 FR 55225, 55233 (November 1, 2001) (PCX-00-25) (order
approving Archipelago Exchange (``ArcaEx'') as the equities trading
facility of PCX Equities, Inc.) (``ArcaEx Order''). In the 2001 PCX
filing, two commenters expressed concerns regarding ArcaEx's
affiliation with the Wave broker-dealer, which operated as the
outbound routing broker-dealer for ArcaEx. Specifically, these
commenters were concerned that the affiliation between ArcaEx and
Wave would be anti-competitive and could create a conflict of
interest. See also supra note 55, at 51304 (citing to the BATS Y
order).
    \57\ ArcaEx Order, supra note 56, at 55233.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As specified in IEX's initial Form 1, unexecuted shares of routable
orders sent to IEXS would not have traversed the POP/coil. As revised
by Amendment Nos. 2, 3, and 4, IEX now proposes a significantly
different structure that it says is intended to place its router and
routing logic in an identical position to non-affiliated routing
broker-dealers.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX, to Brent
J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated February 29, 2016, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX's recent amendments include new rules to bifurcate its handling
of non-routable and routable orders.\59\ For routable orders, IEX
explains that it would insert an additional POP/coil delay within the
IEX system to delay routable orders' access to the IEX book by an
additional 350 microseconds after they have already passed through the
initial POP/coil delay on their way into the IEX system (for a total
delay of 700 microseconds before any portion of the routable order
reaches the IEX book).\60\ IEX represents that this new delay is
intended to place IEX in the same position as a third-party routing
broker in reaching IEX's book through a POP/coil delay, such that IEX's
ability to submit a routable order to its own order book would be
identical to any other routing broker-dealer's ability to submit a
routable order to the IEX order book despite the fact that the orders
would traverse different paths in the system.\61\ Likewise, IEX notes
that messages from the IEX order book back to IEX's routing logic also
would be subject to this POP/coil delay to effect a latency identical
to that experienced by IEX's non-affiliated members when receiving
messages back from the IEX order book.\62\ As such, IEX

represents that its routing functionality would have no information
advantage (i.e., no special view of IEX's book, including displayed or
non-displayed interest) and IEX represents that the proposal places its
outbound routing functionality in an identical position to third-party
routing broker-dealers when sending orders into the IEX matching engine
and when receiving transaction information from the IEX matching
engine.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See id.
    \60\ See id. at 1-2 (``Please note that because of the speed
bump introduced between the IEX Router and the IEX matching engine,
IEX routing members independently choosing to use the IEX Router
will experience an additional 350 microseconds of latency as
compared to members sending non-routable orders to the IEX matching
engine.'').
    \61\ See id. at 1 (``In particular, this redesign eliminates any
alleged advantage claimed by the commenters that the Router has over
a third party broker routing to IEX.'').
    \62\ See id. at 1-2 (noting that ``the IEX Router would receive
fill information from the IEX matching engine by way of the speed
bump, which would place the IEX Router's ability to receive
information from the IEX matching engine on equal terms to an
independent broker router'').
    \63\ See id. at 2 (noting that ``the IEX Router would receive
IEX quote information (the IEX TOPS feed) over the speed bump, which
would place the IEX Router's ability to receive IEX quote
information on equal terms to an independent broker router'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given this additional POP/coil delay, Users submitting routable
orders to IEX and Users submitting non-routable orders to IEX would not
be subject to the same cumulative POP/coil delay. Non-routable orders
would remain subject to the 350 microsecond delay into and out of the
IEX matching engine via the initial POP/coil. Routable orders, however,
would be sent to IEX's system routing logic first, and, if routed to
IEX, would traverse a new POP/coil delay (with an additional 350
microsecond delay) when interacting with the IEX matching engine.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See id. IEX believes that this additional delay should not
be to the detriment of a User submitting a routable order, and notes
that Users may avoid this additional delay by submitting non-
routable orders. See id. In addition, the trade confirmation report
from the IEX matching engine back to the User that submitted the
routable order would be subject to a 700 microsecond delay, whereas
IEX's proprietary data feed would only be subject to a 350
microsecond delay. See id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is evaluating whether IEX's revised proposal for
handling routable orders sufficiently addresses concerns that its
proposed rules may not be consistent with the Act, for example whether
they constitute unfair discrimination, or impose an unnecessary or
inappropriate burden on competition.
    Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is appropriate at this
time to institute proceedings to determine whether to grant or deny
IEX's Form 1, as modified by IEX's recent amendments. For the reasons
set forth above, the Commission believes that questions remain as to
whether IEX's proposed trading system is consistent with the
requirements of: (1) Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\65\ which provides
that an exchange shall not be registered as a national securities
exchange unless the Commission determines that the rules of the
exchange are designed, among other things, not to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; and (2)
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\66\ which provides that an exchange shall
not be registered as a national securities exchange unless the
Commission determines that the rules of the exchange do not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of Act.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \66\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \67\ Commenters also raised concerns about whether IEX's
quotation, in light of the POP/coil delay, could be categorized as
``automated,'' and therefore be ``protected,'' under Rule 611 of
Regulation NMS given prior Commission guidance on those definitions
when it adopted Regulation NMS. See, e.g., FIA First Letter; NYSE
First Letter; Citadel First Letter. The Commission is separately
evaluating the definition of automated quotation under Regulation
NMS in light of comments received on IEX's Form 1 concerning the
consistency of the POP/coil delay with Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission invites comment on all aspects of IEX's Form 1, as
amended, particularly with regard to the proposed outbound routing
functionality as presented in its recent amendments. In particular, do
commenters have a view on whether IEX's revised proposal places other
routing brokers who are members of IEX on the same footing as IEX in a
manner that would address the concerns under the Act and the rules
thereunder? Are there material aspects of IEX's proposed revised
routing functionality that are not clearly presented in IEX's revised
rules \68\ and addressed by IEX's Form 1, as amended? Do commenters
have a view on whether the different delays in accessing the IEX
matching engine experienced by routable orders versus non-routable
orders present any concerns under the Act?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See supra note 45 (citing to the proposed amended IEX rules
that would accommodate the new routing process, including proposed
IEX Rule 11.510).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Extension of Time for Proceedings

    As noted above, IEX previously consented to an extension of time
for its Form 1 to March 21, 2016.\69\ Most recently, on February 29,
March 4, and March 7, IEX filed amendments to its Form 1.\70\ As
discussed above, these amendments contained, among other unrelated
changes, several new and amended rules to effect a significantly
different approach to outbound routing. IEX stated its belief that its
new routing proposal addresses concerns raised by commenters about its
outbound routing functionality and whether that original proposal was
consistent with the Act.\71\ For the reasons discussed above, the
Commission believes it is necessary to provide a notice and comment
period so that market participants can evaluate the new proposal and
amended rule text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ See supra note 6.
    \70\ See supra notes 7-9.
    \71\ See Letter from Sophia Lee, General Counsel, IEX, to Brent
J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated February 29, 2016, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX filed these amendments to its Form 1 approximately two weeks
prior to the March 21 deadline. The Commission does not have sufficient
time before that March 21 deadline to publish notice of IEX's
amendments in the Federal Register, afford market participants a 21-day
comment period, and then evaluate any comments received before making a
final determination on IEX's Form 1, as amended. Therefore, to provide
time for public notice and comment and for Commission consideration of
this significant new proposal from IEX, the Commission believes that
there is good cause for a ninety-day extension of these proceedings.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby designates June 18, 2016 as the date
by which the Commission shall determine whether to grant or deny IEX's
Form 1, as amended, for registration as a national securities exchange.

V. Request for Written Comments

    The Commission requests that interested persons provide written
views and data with respect to IEX's Form 1, as amended, and the
questions included above or other relevant issues. Comments may be
submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number 10-222 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 10-222. This file number
should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the
Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please
use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the
Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to IEX's Form 1 filed with the Commission, and
all written communications relating to the application between the
Commission and any person, other than those that

may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5
U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
publicly available. All submissions should refer to File Number 10-222
and should be submitted on or before April 14, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-06632 Filed 3-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 18 (Friday, January 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3610-3615]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01480]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0498; FRL-9971-94]

Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes time-limited tolerances for
residues of

flonicamid in or on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads.
    This action is in response to EPA's granting of an emergency
exemption under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) authorizing use of the pesticide on prickly pear, fruit and
prickly pear, pads. This regulation establishes a maximum permissible
level for residues of flonicamid in or on these commodities. The time-
limited tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 26, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 27, 2018, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0498, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl. To access the OCSPP test guidelines referenced in this
document electronically, please go to https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/about-office-chemical-safety-and-pollution-prevention-ocspp and select
``Test Methods and Guidelines.''

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

    Under section 408(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect
of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in
accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure
proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0498
in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All
objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be
received by the Hearing Clerk on or before March 27, 2018. Addresses
for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are
provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0498, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with FFDCA sections
408(e) and 408(l)(6) of, 21 U.S.C. 346a(e) and 346a(1)(6), is
establishing time-limited tolerances for residues of insecticide
flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide)
and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM
(4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-
trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of flonicamid, in or on prickly pear, fruit at 1.5 parts per
million (ppm) and prickly pear, pads at 1.5 ppm. These time-limited
tolerances expire on December 31, 2020.
    Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited
tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for
pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a
pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under FIFRA
section 18. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice
or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on
FIFRA section 18 related time-limited tolerances to set binding
precedents for the application of FFDCA section 408 and the safety
standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA
allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having
received any petition from an outside party.
    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include

occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State
agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that ``emergency
conditions exist which require such exemption.'' EPA has established
regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.

III. Emergency Exemption for Flonicamid on Prickly Pear, Fruit and
Prickly Pear, Pads and FFDCA Tolerances

    The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) requested a
specific emergency exemption for the use of flonicamid on prickly pear
cactus fruit (Opuntia spp.) and nopalitos (pads) to control cochineal
(Dactylopius opuntiae) in Monterey County, California. Cochineal
insects are sap-sucking, aggressive scale insects that are considered
to be a major pest for prickly pear cactus. These insects damage the
cactus plant by inserting their mouth parts into the cactus and feeding
on the plant's sap. The feeding site of the cactus begins to swell and
discolor. Eventually, the outer pads of the plant will fall off and the
entire cactus plant dies. Cochineal colonies were first observed in the
Salinas Valley cactus plantations in 2003. Birds heavily feed on cactus
fruit, and while feeding on cochineal infected plants, the birds can
pick up the nymphs on their feet and aid in spreading of the
population. In 2013 and 2015 reduced amounts of precipitation in
Salinas, California caused the cochineal population to flourish and
build to uncontrollable levels. Even though 2016 and 2017 received
normal levels of rain, cochineal infestations have not been inhibited
due to the amount of cochineal present and the ineffective control from
registered alternatives. As a result, growers are experiencing
significant damage to their prickly pear cactus crops.
    After having reviewed the submission, EPA determined that an
emergency condition exists for this State, and that the criteria for
approval of an emergency exemption are met. EPA has authorized a
specific exemption under FIFRA section 18 for the use of flonicamid on
prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads for control of cochineal in
California.
    As part of its evaluation of the emergency exemption application,
EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of flonicamid in
or on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads. In doing so, EPA
considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA
decided that the necessary tolerances under FFDCA section 408(l)(6)
would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18.
Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in
order to address an urgent, non-routine situation and to ensure that
the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is issuing these tolerances
without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in FFDCA
section 408(l)(6). Although these time-limited tolerances expire on
December 31, 2020, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the
pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance
remaining in or on prickly pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads after
that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide was applied in a
manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed a
level that was authorized by these time-limited tolerances at the time
of that application. EPA will take action to revoke these time-limited
tolerances earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other
relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are
not safe.
    Because these time-limited tolerances are being approved under
emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether
flonicamid meets FIFRA's registration requirements for use on prickly
pear, fruit and prickly pear, pads or whether permanent tolerances for
this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not
believe that this time-limited tolerance decision serves as a basis for
registration of flonicamid by a State for special local needs under
FIFRA section 24(c), nor does this tolerance by itself serve as the
authority for persons in any State other than California to use this
pesticide on the applicable crops under FIFRA section 18, absent the
issuance of an emergency exemption applicable within that State. For
additional information regarding the emergency exemption for
flonicamid, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address
provided under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Consistent with the factors specified in FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other
relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data
to assess the hazards of, and to make a determination on, aggregate
exposure expected as a result of this emergency exemption request and
the time-limited tolerances for residues of flonicamid on prickly pear,
fruit at 1.5 ppm and prickly pear, pads at 1.5 ppm. EPA's assessment of
exposures and risks associated with establishing time-limited
tolerances follows.

A. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flonicamid used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of November 14, 2012 (77 FR 67771)
(FRL-9368-7).

B. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to flonicamid, EPA considered exposure expected under the
time-limited tolerances established by this action as well as all
existing flonicamid tolerances in 40 CFR 180.613. EPA assessed dietary
exposures from flonicamid in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. No acute effects were observed at doses well
above those

likely to be encountered; therefore, an endpoint was not selected, and
a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA NHANES/
WWEIA Survey. For the proposed section 18 use of flonicamid on prickly
pear, fruit and pads, a dietary exposure assessment was not performed
because there was no consumption reported for either commodity in
NHANES/WWEIA. Due to the limited production and availability of prickly
pear commodities, any increase in flonicamid dietary exposure from
consumption of prickly pear commodities is expected to be insignificant
compared to the flonicamid exposures pursuant to existing tolerances
for flonicamid on various fruits and vegetables (40 CFR 180.613) which
are produced in significantly greater quantities that prickly pear.
These existing flonicamid tolerances are based on conservative
(protective) exposure assumptions including use of tolerance level
residues for all crops and 100% of the crops were treated. Therefore,
any additional chronic risks from exposures of residues of flonicamid
on prickly pear would likely be accounted for through the conservative
assumptions underlying the existing tolerances.
    iii. Cancer. As discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of November 14, 2012 (77 FR 67771),
EPA has concluded that a nonlinear RfD approach is appropriate for
assessing cancer risk to flonicamid. For the same reasons discussed in
Unit IV.B.ii., regarding chronic exposure, EPA believes that any
additional cancer risks from exposures of residues of flonicamid on
prickly pear would likely be accounted for through the conservative
assumptions underlying the existing tolerances.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for flonicamid. Tolerance level residues and 100% CT
were assumed for all food commodities included in the exposure
assessment.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for flonicamid in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of flonicamid. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW), the
estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of flonicamid for
chronic exposures for non-cancer assessments are estimated to be 0.94
parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 9.92 ppb for ground
water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 9.92 ppb was used as the
flonicamid contribution from drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).

Flonicamid is not registered for any specific use patterns that would
result in residential exposure. Further information regarding EPA
standard assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may
be found at: https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and'' other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found flonicamid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and flonicamid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
flonicamid does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

C. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional SF when reliable data
available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicity database for flonicamid includes prenatal developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and, a multi-generation
reproduction toxicity study in rats. There is no evidence that
flonicamid results in increased susceptibility (qualitative or
quantitative) in utero in rats or rabbits in the prenatal developmental
studies or in young rats in the multi-generation reproduction study. No
developmental effects were seen in rabbits. In the multi-generation
reproduction study, developmental delays in the offspring (decreased
body weights, delayed sexual maturation) were seen only in the presence
of prenatal toxicity (kidney and blood effects). Also, there are clear
NOAELs and LOAELs for all effects. The degree of concern for prenatal
and/or postnatal susceptibility is, therefore low due to the lack of
evidence of qualitative and quantitative susceptibility.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X, except where assessing risk from inhalation
exposure as discussed below. Those decisions are based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for flonicamid is essentially complete,
except for an outstanding subchronic 28-day inhalation study. In the
absence of a subchronic inhalation study, EPA has retained a 10X FQPA
SF to assess risk from inhalation exposure, although at present,
residential inhalation exposure is not expected from existing or
pending uses of flonicamid.
    ii. There is no indication that flonicamid is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that flonicamid results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.

    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The chronic dietary food exposure assessment was based on
100 PCT, tolerance-level residues and where applicable, default
processing factors. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in
the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to
flonicamid in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate
the exposure and risks posed by flonicamid.

D. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effects were observed to result from single
oral exposures at doses well above those likely to be encountered, and
therefore, flonicamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
flonicamid from food and water will utilize 59% of the cPAD for
(children 1-2 years old), the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. There are no residential uses for flonicamid.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Flonicamid is
not registered for any use patterns that would result in short term
residential exposures.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term non-dietary, non-occupational
exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a
background exposure level). Flonicamid is not registered for any use
patterns that would result in intermediate-term residential exposures.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
information referenced in Unit IV.A, EPA has concluded that the cPAD is
protective of possible cancer effects from flonicamid because, as noted
in Unit IV.D.2, aggregate chronic exposure to flonicamid is below the
cPAD.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate
exposure to flonicamid residues.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An adequate enforcement methodology (FMC Method No. P-3561M, a
liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method
is available to enforce the tolerance expression for flonicamid and its
metabolites in or on plant commodities. The method may be requested
from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center,
701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-
2905; email address: [email protected].

B. International Residue Limits

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

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, time-limited tolerances are established for residues of
flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide)
and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM
(4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-
trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of flonicamid, in or on prickly pear, fruit at 1.5 ppm and
prickly pear, pads at 1.5 ppm. These tolerances expire on December 31,
2020.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA sections 408(e) and
408(l)(6). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these
types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order
12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive
Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This
action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq., nor does it require any special considerations under Executive
Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established in accordance
with FFDCA sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6), such as the tolerances in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply

to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any
enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 28, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.613, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]180.613   Flonicamid; tolerances for residues.

* * * * *
    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances
specified in the following table are established for residues of the
flonicamid, N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide)
and its metabolites, TFNA (4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid), TFNA-AM
(4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide), and TFNG (N-(4-
trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine), calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of flonicamid, in or on the specified agricultural
commodities, resulting from use of the pesticide pursuant to FFIFRA
section 18 emergency exemptions. The tolerances expire on the date
specified in the table.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Parts per    Expiration
                   Commodity                      million        date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prickly pear, fruit...........................          1.5   12/31/2020
Prickly pear, pads............................          1.5   12/31/2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-01480 Filed 1-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78664-78666]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31549]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1169]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of
the floodplain management measures that the community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to
qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before March 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1169, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500
C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for
each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR
67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations
are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 * Elevation in feet (NGVD) + Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NAVD)  Depth in feet above ground -
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced              Elevation in meters (MSL)
                                            elevation**       --------------------------------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified     Communities affected
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Meeker County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jewett Creek........................  At the upstream side of         None        +1105  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       State Highway 24.                                  Meeker County.
                                      Approximately 676 feet          None        +1105
                                       downstream of Sibley
                                       Avenue.
Lake Ripley/East Lake Ripley........  Entire shoreline within         None        +1128  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       community.                                         Meeker County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
- Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
                                      Unincorporated Areas of Meeker County
Maps are available for inspection at the Meeker County Courthouse, 325 Sibley Avenue North, Litchfield, MN
 55355.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Creek (backwater effects from     From the Grand River            None         +649  Unincorporated Areas of
 Missouri River).                      confluence to                                      Carroll County.
                                       approximately 2.7
                                       miles upstream of
                                       County Road 335.
Grand River (backwater effects from   From the Missouri River         None         +649  Unincorporated Areas of
 Missouri River).                      confluence to the                                  Carroll County.
                                       upstream side of the
                                       railroad.

Missouri River......................  At the Grand River              +646         +645  City of Dewitt, City of
                                       confluence.                                        Norborne, Town of
                                                                                Carrollton,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Carroll County.
                                      At the Ray County               +692         +689
                                       boundary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
- Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Dewitt
Maps are available for inspection at the Carroll County Courthouse, 8 South Main Street, Suite 6, Carrollton, MO
 64633.

City of Norborne
Maps are available for inspection at the Carroll County Courthouse, 8 South Main Street, Suite 6, Carrollton, MO
 64633.

Town of Carrollton
Maps are available for inspection at Carrollton City Hall, 206 West Washington Avenue, Carrollton, MO 64633.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Carroll County
Maps are available for inspection at the Carroll County Courthouse, 8 South Main Street, Suite 6, Carrollton, MO
 64633.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: December 7, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-31549 Filed 12-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 162)]
[Notices]
[Page 49181-49182]
[DOCID:fr20au08-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

August 15, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP97-81-049.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans. LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC submits
the amended and restated negotiated rate agreement and Twenty-Third
Revised Sheet 4G.01 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume 1-
A.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080815-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP02-361-072.
    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    Description: Gulfstream Natural Gas System submits Original Sheet
8.02n et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1, to become effective
8/7/08.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080808-0228.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 20, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-174-005.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Description: Columbia Gulf Transmission Company submits Tenth
Revised Sheet 216 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No.
1, to become effective 9/1/08.

    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-340-006.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation.
    Description: Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation submits Seventh
Revised Sheet 390 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1,
to become effective 9/1/08.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-421-001.
    Applicants: Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.
    Description: Petal Gas Storage, LLC submits its FERC Gas Tariff 1
tariff sheets in appendix A to be effective 7/25/08.
    Filed Date: 08/13/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080814-0282.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-497-000.
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC submits Sixth
Revised sheet 5 et al., to become effective 10/1/08.
    Filed Date: 08/12/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080813-0299.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, August 25, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-498-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission
Corp submits Sixty-Third Revised Sheet 5 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff,
Third Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080815-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 26, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-499-000.
    Applicants: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company submits Twenty-
Second Revised Sheet 4 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume
1, to become effective 10/1/08.
    Filed Date: 08/14/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080815-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 26, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19289 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9847]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03776]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Permanent Closure of Diego Jimenez Torres Airport, Fajardo,
Puerto Rico

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of permanent closure of Diego Jimenez Torres Airport
(X95).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received written
notice, dated January 21, 2015, from Puerto Rico Ports Authority (PRPA)
advising that on April 30, 2015, it will permanently close Diego
Jimenez Torres Airport (X95), Fajardo, Puerto Rico; the notice was in
excess of 30 days before the closure in accordance with 49 U.S.C.
46319(a). The FAA hereby publishes PRPA's notice of permanent closure
Diego Jimenez Torres Airport in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 46319(b).

DATES: The permanent closure of the airport is effective as of April
30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Parks Preston, Program Manager,
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Campus Bldg.,
Suite 2-260, College Park, GA 30337,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 21, 2015, PRPA, sponsor of Diego
Jimenez Torres Airport (X95), informed the FAA that the Airport will
close permanently on April 30, 2015. (See enclosed letter) X95 is a
small 94-acre non-towered, general aviation airport. The useful life of
the federally funded improvements expired in 2013. FAA recognizes that
PRPA is no longer contractually obligated to continue operating this
airport. Title 49 United States Code Sec.  46319 requires a public
agency (as defined in section 47102) may not permanently close an
airport listed in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems under
section 47103 without providing written notice to the Administrator of
the FAA at least 30 days before the date of the closure. The FAA
recognizes the letter dated January 21, 2015 from PRPA meets this
requirement.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia on February 11, 2015.
Larry F. Clark,
Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-03776 Filed 2-23-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P