[Federal Register: November 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 214)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57415-57418]
[DOCID:fr06no09-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0956]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; SR 90 Bridge, Assawoman Bay, Isle of Wight and Ocean
City, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Assawoman Bay in the vicinity of the SR 90 Bridge (Ocean City
Expressway) that connects Isle of Wight and Ocean City, MD. This action
will protect mariners and public property on Assawoman Bay from the
hazards associated with possible falling debris from the channel span
superstructure and facilitates expeditious repairs to the

span by allowing the contracted company to maintain their position
inside the main channel. Vessel traffic will be redirected to an
alternative channel during the effective period.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. October 22, 2009 through
11:59 p.m. December 31, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0956 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0956 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail LT Tiffany Duffy, United States Coast
Guard Sector Hampton Roads Waterways Management Division; telephone
757-668-5580, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to provide
for the safety of life and property on navigable waters.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be contrary to the public interest because the dilapidated condition of
the channel span superstructure could lead to severe injury,
fatalities, and/or destruction of public property; therefore, immediate
action is needed to ensure public safety.

Background and Purpose

    Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads has been notified by Maryland
Department of Transportation State Highway Administration that
immediate repairs are required on the channel span superstructure of
the SR 90 Bridge over Assawoman Bay. During the period of repair,
vessel traffic through the main channel will be restricted and
redirected to transit under the bridge span immediately west of the
main span. Due to the need to protect mariners and spectators from the
hazards associated with repair operations, access to all waters of
Assawoman Bay within the 900 foot radius of the main channel of the SR
90 Bridge will be closed to navigation. Hazards associated with repair
operations include, but are not limited to, the presence of heavy
machinery used to fix the main channel span and the potential for
falling objects or debris caused by vehicular traffic travelling over
the dilapidated portion of the main channel span.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the specified
waters of Assawoman Bay in the vicinity of Isle of Wight and Ocean
City, Maryland. This safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of
Assawoman Bay within 900 foot radius of approximate position
38[deg]23'19'' N, 075[deg]5'22'' W (NAD 1983). All traffic will be
redirected to navigable waters immediately adjacent to and west of the
main channel span structure by private aids to navigation pre-
positioned at approximate positions 38[deg]23'17'' N, 075[deg]5'34'' W;
38[deg]23'17'' N, 075[deg]5'33'' W; 38[deg]23'24'' N, 075[deg]5'33'' W;
38[deg]23'23'' N, 075[deg]5'32'' W; 38[deg]23'17'' N, 075[deg]5'33'' W;
and 38[deg]23'24'' N, 075[deg]5'33'' W (NAD 1983) and by bridge
navigation lights. The safety zone will be established in the interest
of public safety during the repair of the SR 90 Bridge (Ocean City
Expressway) channel span superstructure and will be enforced from 12:01
a.m. October 22, 2009 through 11:59 p.m. December 31, 2009. No person
or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port or his Representative. Vessels will be allowed
to transit around the safety zone, under the bridge span immediately
west of the main span. Notification of the safety zone will be provided
to the public via marine information broadcasts.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this proposed regulation restricts access to the safety
zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because: (i) The
safety zone will be in effect during less-traveled times of the year;
(ii) the zone is of limited size; (iii) there is an alternative channel
for vessels to transit; and (iv) the Coast Guard will make
notifications via maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly. For those reasons, the Coast Guard does not
anticipate any significant economic impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit or anchor Assawoman Bay in the vicinity of the SR 90 Bridge
(Ocean City Expressway) from 12:01 a.m. October 22, 2009 until 11:59
p.m. December 31, 2009. This safety zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons: (1) The safety zone will only be in place during
less-traveled times of the year; (2) before the effective period,
maritime advisories will be issued allowing mariners to adjust their
plans accordingly; (3) although the safety zone will apply to

all navigable waters of Assawoman Bay within a 900 feet radius of
approximate position 38[deg]23'19'' N, 075[deg]5'22'' W (NAD 1983),
vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the zone with the
permission of the Captain of the Port or his Representative; and (4)
there is an alternative channel for vessels to transit.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a safety
zone. This safety zone introduces no additional hazards to the
environment while ensuring that life and property are protected during
repair operations of the channel span superstructure. An environmental
analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6 and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0956 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0956  Safety Zone; SR 90 Bridge, Assawoman Bay, Isle of
Wight and Ocean City, MD.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: Specified waters
of Assawoman Bay within 900 foot radius of approximate position
38[deg]23'19'' N, 075[deg]5'22'' W (NAD 1983)., in the

vicinity of Isle of Wight and Ocean City, MD.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads, Virginia
to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated
representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone must:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65 Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement Period: This regulation will be in effect from
October 22, 2009 through December 31, 2009.

    Dated: October 22, 2009.
M.S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.

[FR Doc. E9-26772 Filed 11-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 8825-8827]
[DOCID:fr27fe07-152]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55316; File No. SR-NYSE-2007-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Rule 70 (Bids and Offers)

February 20, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'')\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 7, 2007, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the self-
regulatory organization. On February 16, 2007, the Exchange filed
Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change. NYSE filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended,
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Exchange Rule 70.30 which sets
forth the definition of Crowd. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the

Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange's Hybrid Market SM (``Hybrid Market'')
integrates the auction market with automated trading. Essential to the
auction market is the interaction among members on the Floor and
between Floor brokers and orders in the Display Book [supreg] System
that creates opportunities for price improvement, provides information
about changing market conditions and serves as a catalyst to trading.
Exchange Rule 70.30 \5\ defines a Crowd as `` * * * the specific
identifiable areas on the Floor where Floor brokers generally are able
to see and hear the business conducted at each post/panel within the
Crowd.'' Each designated area served to delineate the boundaries of the
Crowd. In order to identify the specific boundaries of the Crowd, the
Exchange divided each trading room of the Floor into specific areas
which were identified on the Floor by colored tiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54427 (September 12,
2006), 71 FR 54862 (September 19, 2006) (SR-NYSE-2006-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Exchange Rule 70.30 further requires that Floor brokers be in the
Crowd in order to represent orders that the Floor broker has in his or
her agency interest files (i.e., in order to ``e-Quote''). Pursuant to
Rule 70.30 a Floor broker may only have agency interest files or e-
Quote in one Crowd at a time.
    As the Exchange continues its implementation of the Hybrid Market,
it has gained experience operating in the Hybrid Market environment.
Based on this experience, the Exchange seeks to amend the definition of
Crowd in order to better facilitate the critical interaction among
members on the Floor.
    In practice, the current definition of the Crowd proved difficult
and confusing. Individuals that were unable to easily discern Crowd
boundaries and those with color blindness must rely on charts that list
the post/panels that are designated areas that make up the specified
Crowd, adding a level of inefficiency to their ability to trade.
    In addition, as announced on October 31, 2006,\6\ the Exchange is
in the process of consolidating its trading operations from five rooms
to four over an 18-month period. The trading floor consolidation plan
calls for the closing of the trading room that currently occupies 30
Broad Street and the relocation of the specialist firm and the 33 floor
brokerage firms from that facility to the Exchange's other trading
rooms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ NYSE Announces Floor Consolidation Plan, NYSE Group
Newsletter, October 31, 2006, available at http://www.nyse.com/about/publication/1164799108193.html
.

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

    Given the practical difficulties with the current definition of a
Crowd and the current consolidation of the Floor, the Exchange proposes
to amend the definition of the Crowd in order to reflect more
accurately the areas which most efficiently facilitate the beneficial
interaction among the members on the Floor. The Exchange believes that
this is best reflected in defining the Crowd as encompassing the
trading Floor in each remaining trading room.
    The Exchange will divide the Floor into three trading zones. Each
trading zone will represent a specific identifiable Crowd. As a result,
the current Main Room and Garage will each constitute two separate
Crowds. The third Crowd will include the current Blue Room and Extended
Blue Room.
    As is the case today, once in a Crowd, a Floor broker is able to e-
Quote in all securities located in that Crowd. If the Floor broker
leaves one Crowd in order to work in another, the Floor broker is
required to withdraw his or her agency interest from the Crowd he or
she is leaving. However, a Floor Broker may obtain ``market looks'' in
a securities located in other Crowds without canceling his or her e-
Quotes. The Exchange intends that the proposed rule change will be
operative on February 20, 2007.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\7\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act \8\ in particular in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, and to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
by its terms, become operative for 30 days from the date on which it
was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it
has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)\11\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the five-day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-
day operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the five-
day pre-filing notice requirement and the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Specifically, the Commission believes that the proposal could more
accurately reflect the areas which most efficiently facilitate the
beneficial interaction among the Floor brokers and allow the exchange
to implement the proposal immediately.\12\
    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such proposed rule change
if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \13\ For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C), the
Commission considers the period to commence on February 16, 2007,
the date NYSE filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2007-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2007-14. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSE-2007-14 and should be submitted on or before March
20, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3289 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 9018]
[DOCID:fr26fe10-148]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Genesis Worldwide Logistics

[Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2010-0008]

    The Genesis Worldwide Logistics (GWWL) has petitioned FRA for a
waiver of compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR 223.11, ``Safety
Glazing Standards for Locomotives,'' and 49 CFR 231.30, ``Locomotives
used in Switching Service.'' GWWL is in the business of providing in-
plant switching services for a warehousing and packaging distribution
business located in Houston, Texas. The efficiency and safety of their
in-plant operation is dependent on their use of the ``Stewart-Stevenson
SS-4650 RailKing.'' GWWL reports that this is a most technologically
up-to-date self-propelled vehicle designed for the movement of rail
cars. The switching and interchange operations of GWWL are limited to
movement on tracks at speeds of less than 10 mph on ``other-than-main-
track'' and on their own leased track from the Union Pacific. The
approval of this request would allow for ``compliant use'' of the
SS4650 RailKing for these operations.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2010-0008) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 22, 2010.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-3949 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: April 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 21054-21055]
[DOCID:fr27ap07-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0022]

Standard on Occupational Exposure to Noise (Noise); Extension of
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OBM approval of the information collection requirements
contained in its Noise Standard (29 CFR 1910.95). The information
collection requirements specified in the Noise Standard protect
employees from suffering material hearing impairment.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
June 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not loner
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0022,
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and
courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and
Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0022). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Jamaa N. Hill
at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa N. Hill or Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information
regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries,
illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also requires
that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon employers,
especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce to the
extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in obtaining
information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements specified in the Noise
Standard protect employees from suffering material hearing impairment.
The information collection requirements of the Noise Standard include
conducting noise monitoring; notifying employees when they are exposed
at or above an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels; providing
employees with initial and annual audiograms; notifying employees of a
loss in hearing based on comparing audiograms; training employees on
the effects of noise, hearing protectors, and audiometric examinations;
maintaining records of workplace noise exposure and employee
audiograms; and allowing employees, OSHA, and NIOSH access to materials
and records required by the Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comments

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions to
protect employees, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    The Agency is requesting a reduction in burden hours from 5.18
million to an estimated 2.85 million. The reduction is a result of
reducing the number of participating employers and employees in
manufacturing industries by 25%. OSHA will summarize the comments
submitted in response to this notice, and will include this summary in
the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Noise Standard (29 CFR 1910.95).
    OMB Number: 1218-0048.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 379,512.
    Frequency: On occasion; annually.
    Total Responses: 16,610,221.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 2 minutes to notify
employees when noise exposure exceeds the 8-hour time-weighted average
of 85 decibels to 1 hour for employees in small establishments to take
audiometric examinations.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 2,853,730 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $40,993,579.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0022). You
may supplement electronic materials by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or a facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your full name, date, and docket number so the Agency can attach
them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including coyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments and

access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the
Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Goulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 23, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 07-2081 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-M


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53440-53445]
[DOCID:fr19se07-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539; FRL-8147-3]

Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for combined residues
of Trifloxystrobin and the acid metabolite CGA-321113 in or on grass,
forage and grass, hay. Bayer CropScience requested this tolerance under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective September 19, 2007. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 19, 2007,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539. To access the

http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov
website to view the docket index or access available documents. All
documents in the docket are listed in the docket index available in
regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard

copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janet Whitehurst, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111), e.g., agricultural
workers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers; farmers.
     Animal production (NAICS code 112), e.g., cattle ranchers
and farmers, dairy cattle farmers, livestock farmers.
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311), e.g., agricultural
workers; farmers; greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture workers;
ranchers; pesticide applicators.
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532), e.g.,
agricultural workers; commercial applicators; farmers; greenhouse,
nursery, and floriculture workers; residential users.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also
be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, you may access this Federal Register document

electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a

frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at
40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR
site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, any person may file an objection
to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk as required by 40 CFR part 178 on or
before November 19, 2007.
    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 that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2007 (72 FR 42072) (FRL-8138-
1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6F7024) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR
180.555 be amended by establishing a tolerance for combined residues of
the fungicide Trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-
(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl ester) and the free form of
its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-
trifluoromethylphenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl] acetic acid,
in or on grass, forage at 10 parts per million (ppm) and grass, hay at
14 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by
Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which is available to the public in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the

notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit
IV.C. below.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the tolerances proposed for grass, forage and grass, hay. The
appropriate tolerances for grass forage and hay were calculated to be
12 and 17 ppm, respectively. Although residue data were also provided
for grass straw and seed screenings, tolerances are not required on
these commodities as the Agency no longer considers them to be
significant livestock feedstuffs. The recommended tolerance levels for
grass forage and hay were determined considering recent Agency Guidance
(Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on Field Trial Data).

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the 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 the
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....'' These provisions were added to the
FFDCA by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for the petitioned-for tolerance
for combined residues of Trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-
[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl)
phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl ester) and the free form of
its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (E,E)-methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-
trifluoromethylphenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-phenyl] acetic acid
(hereinafter referrred to as Trifloxsytrobin) on grass, forage at 12
ppm and grass, hay at 17 ppm. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with establishing the tolerance follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by Trifloxystrobin as well as the no-
observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-
effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found in the
Trifloxystrobin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3
Registration for the Proposed Uses on Grasses Grown for Seed. at http://www.regulations.gov.
 The referenced document is available in the

docket established by this action, which is described under ADDRESSES,
and is identified as EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539 in that docket.

B. Toxicological Endpoints

    For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological level of concern (LOC) is derived
from the highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the
NOAEL) in the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in
risk assessment. However, if a NOAEL cannot be determined, the lowest
dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is
sometimes used for risk assessment. Uncertainty/safety factors (UFs)
are used in conjunction with the LOC to take into account uncertainties
inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and
in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population
as well as other unknowns. Safety is assessed for acute and chronic
risks by comparing aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the acute
population adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD). The aPAD and cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all
applicable UFs. Short-term, intermediate-term, and long-term risks are
evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to the LOC to ensure that the
margin of exposure (MOE) called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of
exposure will lead to some degree of risk and estimates risk in terms
of the probability of occurrence of additional adverse cases.
Generally, cancer risks are considered non-threshold. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/trac/science; http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/

ides/

aggregate.pdf
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for Trifloxystrobin used
for human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in

document Trifloxystrobin: Human Health Risk Assessment for Section 3
Registration for the Proposed Uses on Grasses Grown for Seed. Petition
No: 6F7024 at page 16 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0539.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to Trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing Trifloxystrobin
tolerances in (40 CFR 180.555). EPA assessed dietary exposures from
Trifloxystrobin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption
information from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996
and 1998 Nationwide Continuing Surveys of Food Intake by Individuals
(CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100% crop treated
(CT) and tolerance level residues for each commodity.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed 100% CT and
tolerance level residues for each commodity.
    iii. Cancer. The Agency classified trifloxystrobin as a ``not
likely carcinogen;'' therefore, quantification of human cancer risk is
not required and a cancer dietary assessment was not performed.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
The Agency did not use anticipated residue estimates or PCT information
in the trifloxystrobin dietary exposure assessment.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for Trifloxystrobin in drinking water.
Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data,
drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on
simulation or modeling taking into account data on the environmental
fate characteristics of Trifloxystrobin. Further information regarding
EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.

    Based on the First Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST),
Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models, and rice
paddies

method the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of
Trifloxystrobin and the metabolite CGA-321113 for acute exposures are
estimated to be 92 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 3.4
ppb for ground water. The EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to
be 140 ppb for surface water and 3.4 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 92 ppb was used to access
the contribution to drinking water. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 140 ppb was used to access
the contribution to drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following
residential non-dietary sites: Turfgrass and ornamentals. EPA assessed
residential exposure using the following assumption: Non-occupational
postapplication contact with trifloxystrobin following Compass[reg] use
on turfgrass is the most common and worst case contributor to such
exposures.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of the 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.''
    Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative
risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made
a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to Trifloxystrobin and any
other substances and Trifloxystrobin does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that Trifloxystrobin
has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For
information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a
common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of
such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative
.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408 of the FFDCA provides that EPA shall
apply an additional (``10X'') tenfold 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. In
applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X
when reliable data do not support the choice of a different factor, or,
if reliable data are available, EPA uses a different additional FQPA
safety factor value based on the use of traditional UFs and/or special
FQPA safety factors, as appropriate.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. In the prenatal
developmental study in rats there was no developmental toxicity at the
Limit Dose. In the prenatal developmental study in rabbits,
developmental toxicity was seen at a dose that was higher than the dose
that caused maternal toxicity. In the 2-generation reproduction study,
there was no offspring toxicity at the highest dose tested.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show that it
would be safe for infants and children to reduce the FQPA safety factor
to 1X. That decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for Trifloxystrobin is complete except for
an acute neurotoxicity study which is classified as unacceptable. The
toxicity database contains developmental toxicity studies in two
species (rats and rabbits) and a 2-generation reproduction study in
rats which are adequate to assess pre and/or post natal susceptibility
to infants and children. Although the available, submitted acute
neurotoxicity study was found to be unacceptable, based on a weight-of-
the evidence review of the available data, the lack of this study does
not impact the Agency's ability to make an FQPA safety factor decision.
Given that there was no evidence of neurotoxicity in this study at the
Limit Dose nor in the other subchronic and chronic studies in the
database there is not an uncertainty concerning neurotoxic effects and
EPA has reliable data to show that removal of the FQPA safety factor is
safe for children. Additionally, these data demonstrate that a
developmental neurotoxicity study is not required for this pesticide.
    ii. There is no residual concern for pre- or post-natal toxicity or
increased sensitivity in infants and children. In both the rat
developmental study and the 2-generation reproduction study there were
no effects in fetal animals or offspring at the highest dose tested.
Although developmental effects were seen in the rabbit developmental
study, there was a clear NOAEL identified for these effects and that
NOAEL was used in setting the aPAD. Moreover, adverse effects were seen
in the adult animals in this study at a lower level.
    iii. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% CT and tolerance-level residues Conservative ground water and
surface water modeling estimates were used. Similarly conservative
Residential SOPs were used to assess post-application exposure to
children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
Trifloxystrobin].

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Safety is assessed for acute and chronic risks by comparing
aggregate exposure to the pesticide to the aPAD and cPAD. The aPAD and
cPAD are calculated by dividing the LOC by all applicable UFs. For
linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of additional
cancer cases given aggregate exposure. Short-term, intermediate-term,
and long-term risks are evaluated by comparing aggregate exposure to
the LOC to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all
applicable UFs is not exceeded.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to Trifloxystrobin will occupy < 1% of the aPAD for the population group
(females 13-49 years old) receiving the greatest exposure.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
Trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 81% of the cPAD for
the population group (children 1-2 years old, the most highly exposed
subgroup). Based on the use pattern, chronic residential exposure to
residues of Trifloxystrobin is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water
(considered to be a background exposure level).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for uses that could result
in short-term

residential exposure and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic food and water and short-term
exposures for Trifloxystrobin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded that food, water, and residential
exposures aggregated result in aggregate MOEs greater than 100 for
adults and children 1-2 years. Therefore, the Agency does not consider
short term aggregate risk to be of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Though residential exposure could occur intermediate-term aggregate
risk is not expected based on the short soil half-life (about 2 days).
Therefore, an intermediate-term aggregate risk assessment was not
performed.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. The Agency classified
trifloxystrobin as a ``not likely'' human carcinogen. Therefore,
trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose a cancer risk.
    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 trifloxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (Gas Chromatography with a
nitrogen phosphorus detector (GC/NPD method (Method AG-659A)) is
available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be
requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental
Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    There are currently no Canadian Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) for
trifloxystrobin. Codex and Mexican MRLs have been established for
trifloxystrobin in/on various commodities; however, there are no MRLs
for the commodities associated with the proposed use of trifloxystrobin
in/on grasses grown for seed. Also, the residue definition for both
Codex and Mexican MRLs includes only parent compound in plant
commodities, but the definition for Codex MRLs in livestock commodities
includes parent and the acid metabolite, CGA321113. Therefore,
harmonization in plant commodities is not possible at this time as the
current U.S. tolerance definition includes the combined residues of
trifloxystrobin and its free acid metabolite. Harmonization of the
tolerance level in meat by-products of cattle, goats, and sheep is not
possible at this time as the U.S. tolerance in meat by-products
reflects higher potential exposures to various feedstuffs.

C. Response to Comments

    One comment was received from B. Sachau. Ms. Sachau's comments
regarding general exposure to pesticides contained no scientific data
or evidence to rebut the Agency's conclusion that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to
trilfoxystrobin, including all anticipated dietary exposures and other
exposures for which there is reliable information. This comment as well
as her comments regarding animal testing have been responded to by the
Agency on several occasions. For examples, see the Federal Register
issues of January 7, 2005 (70 FR 1349) (FRL-7691-4) and October 29,
2004 (69 FR 63083) (FRL-7681-9).

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance is established for combined residues of
Trifloxystrobin, (benzeneacetic acid, (E,E)-[alpha]-(methoxyimino)-2-
[[[[1-[3-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl]ethylidene]amino]oxy] methyl]-methyl
ester) and the free form of its acid metabolite CGA-321113 (E,E)-
methoxyimino-[2-[1-(3-trifluoromethylphenyl)-ethylideneaminooxymethyl]-
phenyl] acetic acid in or on grass, forage at tolerance level 12 ppm
and grass, hay at tolerance level 17 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of the
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this rule is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of the FFDCA, such as the tolerance
in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule 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 section 408(n)(4) of the FFDCA. 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 6, 2000) do not apply to this rule. In addition, This
rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. 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 this final rule in the Federal Register. This final
rule 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: September 10, 2007.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.555 is amended by alphabetically adding the following
commodities in the table in paragraph (a):

Sec.  180.555  Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commodity                        Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Grass, forage........................................                 12
Grass, hay...........................................                 17
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-18371 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16311-16313]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6614]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66589; File No. SR-ISE-2012-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt a Route-Out Fee for Priority Customer Orders

March 14, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on February 29, 2012, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to adopt a fee related to the execution of
Priority Customer orders subject to linkage handling. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to adopt a fee related
to the execution of Priority Customer \3\ orders subject to linkage
handling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Pursuant to ISE Rule 100(37A), a Priority Customer is a
person or entity that is not a broker or dealer in securities, and
does not place more than 390 orders in listed options per day on
average during a calendar month for its own beneficial account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 31, 2009, the Exchange implemented the new Options Order
Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan (``Distributive Linkage'')
and the use of Intermarket Sweep Orders (``ISOs''). Consistent with
Distributive Linkage and pursuant to ISE rules, the Exchange's Primary
Market Makers (``PMMs'') have an obligation to address customer \4\
orders when there is a better market displayed on another exchange.
ISE's PMMs meet this obligation via the use of ISOs. In meeting their
obligations, PMMs may incur fees when they send ISOs, especially when
sending ISOs to exchanges that charge ``taker'' fees. To minimize the
PMM's financial burden and help offset such fees, the ISE amended its
schedule of fees on October 1, 2009 to adopt a rebate for the PMM of
$0.20 per contract on all ISO orders sent to an away exchange
(regardless of the fee charged by the exchange where the ISO order sent
away was executed).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Pursuant to ISE Rule 1900(f) of the Distributive Linkage
rules, a customer is an individual or organization that is not a
broker-dealer.
    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 60791 (October
5, 2009), 74 FR 52521 (October 13, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-74).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With the costs associated with servicing Priority Customer orders
that must be executed at another exchange coupled with the cost of
funding the existing fee credit, the Exchange believes it is
appropriate to charge a fee for these orders. Therefore, the Exchange
now proposes to charge Priority Customer orders a fee of $0.25 per
contract for executions that result from the PMM routing ISOs to
another exchange in a limited number of symbols. Specifically, the
proposed fee will only be charged for Priority Customer orders that are
routed to an away exchange in symbols that are subject to the
Exchange's modified maker/taker pricing model. These symbols, which
currently number 101,

are identified on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees as Select Symbols.
The proposed fee change will allow the Exchange to equitably assess
reasonable fees incurred for processing such orders, and permit the
Exchange to recoup administrative and other costs. Under this proposed
rule change, Priority Customer orders that are routed out to another
exchange will be charged $0.25 per contract instead of the standard
taker fee applicable to the Select Symbols.
    The Exchange notes that it currently has a similar fee and credit
for Customer (Professional) orders. Specifically, the Exchange
currently charges PMMs a fee of $0.45 per contract for executions of
Customer (Professional) orders that are routed to one or more exchanges
in connection with Distributive Linkage, and also provides PMMs with a
credit equal to the fee charged by the destination exchange for such
Customer (Professional) orders, but not more than $0.45 per
contract.\6\ This routing fee and credit applies to all the symbols
that are traded on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 61855 (April 6,
2010), 75 FR 19441 (April 14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to make two clarifying changes to its
Schedule of Fees related to ISO fees and credits previously adopted by
the Exchange under SR-ISE-2009-74 and SR-ISE-2010-26. First, as noted
above, the $0.20 per contract fee credit adopted in SR-ISE-2009-74
applies to all the symbols that are traded on the Exchange, including
the Select Symbols. The Exchange has been providing this credit to PMMs
since the inception of the Exchange's modified maker/taker pricing
model. For the sake of clarity, the Exchange proposes to add language
on page 20 of its Schedule of Fees that specifically references the
credit, as follows: ``Intermarket Sweep Order Credit for Priority
Customer--A fee credit of $0.20 per contract applies to Primary Market
Makers (PMM)--for classes in which it serves as a PMM--that send an
Intermarket Sweep Order to other exchanges.'' The proposed language is
almost identical to the language that currently appears on page 5 of
the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    Second, again, as noted above, the $0.45 per contract fee and
credit adopted in SR-ISE-2010-26 currently applies to all the symbols
that are traded on the Exchange, including the Select Symbols. And the
Exchange has been charging this fee and providing a corresponding
credit when PMMs address their obligations under Distributive Linkage
and route these orders for executions to an away exchange. Again, for
the sake of clarity, the Exchange proposes to add language on page 20
of its Schedule of Fees that specifically references both the fee and
the credit, respectively, as follows: ``Intermarket Sweep Order Fee for
Customer (Professional)--A fee of $0.45 per contract applies to
executions of orders from persons who are not broker/dealers and who
are not Priority Customers that are routed to one or more exchanges in
connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market
Plan'' and ``Intermarket Sweep Order Credit for Customer
(Professional)--Primary Market Makers will receive a credit equal to
the fee charged by a destination market, but not more than $0.45 per
contract, for executing orders from persons who are not broker/dealers
and who are not Priority Customers.'' The proposed language for both
the fee and the credit is identical to the language that currently
appears on page 5 of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    The Exchange has designated this proposal to be operative on March
1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Exchange
Act'') for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section
6(b)(4) that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities. In particular, the Exchange believes charging a route-
out fee for Priority Customer orders is reasonable if doing so provides
the Exchange the ability to recover the costs of funding a credit the
Exchange provides to its PMMs, who, in the course of meeting their
obligation, are incurring a financial burden. The Exchange further
believes it is equitable and reasonable to assess the proposed fee to
recoup costs associated with routing Priority Customer orders to away
markets. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees are
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the fees would be
uniformly applied to all Priority Customer orders. ISE notes that a
number of other exchanges currently charge a variety of routing related
fees associated with customer and non-customer orders that are subject
to linkage handling. The Exchange further notes that the fees proposed
herein are substantially lower than the level of fees charged by some
of the Exchange's competitors.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX Fee Schedule, Section V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable and not
unfairly discriminatory to note on its Schedule of Fees, to provide
clarity, that the fees and credits adopted in SR-ISE-2009-74 and SR-
ISE-2101-26 and which, as a result have already been established on the
Exchange, are applicable to the Select Symbols. Since the Exchange has
applied these fees and credits to all the symbols traded on the
Exchange, including the Select Symbols, since the inception of these
fees and credits, noting them on the Exchange's Schedule of Fees will
simply add more clarity to the Exchange's Schedule of Fees and promote
further transparency on the Exchange.

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\8\ At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule

change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2012-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-13. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-13 and should be
submitted on or before April 10, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6614 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P