[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31153-31156]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12518]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72238; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Routing Fees

May 23, 2014.
    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 May 15, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by NASDAQ.
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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify Chapter XV, entitled ``Options Pricing,''
at Section 2 governing pricing for NASDAQ members using the NASDAQ
Options Market (``NOM''), NASDAQ's facility for executing and routing
standardized equity and index options. Specifically, NOM proposes to
amend its Routing Fees. While the changes proposed herein are effective
upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be
operative on June 2, 2014.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaq. cchwallstreet.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to amend the Routing Fees in Chapter
XV, Section 2(3) to recoup costs incurred by the Exchange to route
orders to away markets.
    Today, the Exchange assesses a Non-Customer a $0.95 per contract
Routing Fee to any options exchange. The Customer \3\ Routing Fee for
option orders routed to NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') is a $0.10 per
contract Fixed Fee in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed.
The Customer Routing Fee for option orders routed to NASDAQ OMX BX,
Inc. (``BX Options'') is $0.10 per contract. The Customer Routing Fee
for option orders routed to

all other options exchanges \4\ (excluding PHLX and BX Options) is a
fixed fee of $0.20 per contract (``Fixed Fee'') in addition to the
actual transaction fee assessed. If the away market pays a rebate, the
Routing Fee is $0.10 per contract.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Customer'' or (``C'') applies to any transaction
that is identified by a Participant for clearing in the Customer
range at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') which is not for
the account of broker or dealer or for the account of a
``Professional'' (as that term is defined in Chapter I, Section
1(a)(48)).
    \4\ Including BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), BOX Options
Exchange LLC (``BOX''), the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``CBOE''), C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2''),
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''), the Miami
International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX''), NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE Amex'') and ISE Gemini, LLC
(``Gemini'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the fixed costs, the Exchange incurs a fee when it
utilizes Nasdaq Execution Services LLC (``NES''),\5\ a member of the
Exchange and the Exchange's exclusive order router. Each time NES
routes an order to an away market, NES is charged a clearing fee \6\
and, in the case of certain exchanges, a transaction fee is also
charged in certain symbols, which fees are passed through to the
Exchange. The Exchange currently recoups clearing and transaction
charges incurred by the Exchange as well as certain other costs
incurred by the Exchange when routing to away markets, such as
administrative and technical costs associated with operating NES,
membership fees at away markets, Options Regulatory Fees (``ORFs''),
staffing and technical costs associated with routing options. The
Exchange assesses the actual away market fee at the time that the order
was entered into the Exchange's System. This transaction fee is
calculated on an order-by-order basis since different away markets
charge different amounts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange filed a proposed rule change to utilize Nasdaq
Execution Services, LLC (``NES'') for outbound order routing. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71419 (January 28, 2014), 79 FR
6247 (February 3, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-007).
    \6\ OCC assessed a $0.01 per contract side. The fee has recently
been increased from $0.01 to $0.02 per contract side. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 71769 (March 21, 2014), 79 FR 17214 (March
21, 2014) (SR-OCC-2014-05).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to increase Routing Fees to account for
increased OCC fees and other increased costs associated with clearing,
ORF and other operational costs. The Exchange proposes to increase
Routing Fees for Non-Customer orders from $0.95 to $0.97 per contract.
The Exchange also proposes to increase Customer Routing Fees as
described herein. The Exchange proposes to increase Customer Routing
Fees to PHLX from a Fixed Fee of $0.10 to $0.12 per contract, in
addition to the actual transaction fee assessed. The Exchange proposes
to increase Customer Routing Fees to BX Options from $0.10 to $0.12 per
contract. The Exchange also proposes to amend Routing Fees to all other
exchanges (except PHLX and BX Options) from $0.20 to $0.22 per
contract, in addition to the actual transaction fee assessed, provided
the away market does not pay a rebate. If the away market pays a
rebate, the Routing Fee assessed would be $0.12 per contract, an
increase from the current $0.10 per contract. The Exchange proposes
these increases to recoup an additional portion of the costs incurred
by the Exchange for routing these orders.
    The Exchange is proposing to increase Non-Customer and Customer
Routing Fees by $0.02 per contract to cover the increased costs of
offering its members the opportunity to route to other options
exchanges. With the recent increase by OCC \7\ as well as increases in
ORFs and NOM's operational expenses, the Exchange sees to further
recoup a portion of increased costs with the increase to its Routing
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today the Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee
assessed by BX Options, rather the Exchange only assesses the Fixed
Fee, because the Exchange would continue to retain the rebate to offset
the cost to route orders to BX Options. This is the not the case for
all orders routed to BX Options because not all Customer orders receive
a rebate.\8\ This will remain the same. Similarly, the Exchange is
proposing to amend the Customer Routing Fee assessed when routing to
all other options exchanges, if the away market pays a rebate, from a
$0.10 to a $0.12 per contract Fixed Fee, in order to recoup an
additional portion of the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing
these orders. The Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee
assessed by the away market, rather the Exchange only assesses the
Fixed Fee, because the Exchange would continue to retain the rebate to
offset the cost to route orders to these away markets. This will remain
the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ BX Options pays a Customer Rebate to Remove Liquidity as
follows: Customers are paid $0.32 per contract in All Other Penny
Pilot Options (excluding BAC, IWM, QQQ, SPY and VXX) and $0.70 per
contract in Non-Penny Pilot Options. See BX Options Rules at Chapter
XV, Section 2(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing Schedule is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act \10\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which it operates or
controls, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that amending the Non-Customer and Customer
Routing Fees by $0.02 per contracts is reasonable because the Exchange
desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs when
routing Non-Customer and Customer orders. Specifically, the Exchange's
proposal to increase Non-Customer fees from $0.95 to $0.97 per contract
is reasonable because the additional $0.02 per contract fee will recoup
increased costs borne by NOM.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fees for
orders routed to PHLX from a Fixed Fee of $0.10 to $0.12 per contract
is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an additional
portion of the cost it incurs when routing Customer orders to PHLX. The
Exchange will continue to also assess actual transaction fees assessed
by PHLX for Customer orders.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for
orders routed to BX Options from a Fixed Fee of $0.10 to $0.12 per
contract is reasonable because the Exchange desires to recoup an
additional portion of the cost it incurs when routing Customer orders
to BX Options, similar to the amount of Fixed Fee it proposes to assess
for orders routed to PHLX. While the Exchange would continue to retain
any rebate paid by BX Options, the Exchange does not assess the actual
transaction fee that is charged by BX Options for Customer orders.
    The Exchange believes that continuing to assess lower Fixed Fees to
route Customer orders to PHLX and BX Options, as compared to other
options exchanges, is reasonable as the Exchange is able to leverage
certain infrastructure to offer those markets lower fees as explained
further below.
    The Exchange believes that increasing the fee for routing to all
other options exchanges (other than PHLX and BX Options) from $0.20 to
$0.22 per contact is reasonable because the increased fee would recoup
costs associated with routing Customer orders, in addition to the
actual transaction fee when no rebate is paid. Similarly, the Exchange
believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee to other away markets,
other than PHLX and BX Options, in the instance the away market pays a
rebate from $0.10 to $0.12 per contract is reasonable because the
Exchange desires to recoup an additional portion of the cost it incurs
when routing orders to these away markets. While the Exchange

would continue to retain any rebate paid by these away markets, the
Exchange does not assess the actual transaction fee that is charged by
the away market for Customer orders. The Fixed Fee for Customer orders
is an approximation of the costs the Exchange will be charged for
routing orders to away markets. As a general matter, the Exchange
believes that the proposed fees for Customer orders routed to markets
which pay a rebate, such as BX Options and other away markets, would
allow it to recoup and cover a portion of the costs of providing
optional routing services for Customer orders because it better
approximates the costs incurred by the Exchange for routing such
orders. While each destination market's transaction charge varies and
there is a cost incurred by the Exchange when routing orders to away
markets, including, OCC clearing costs, administrative and technical
costs associated with operating NES, membership fees at away markets,
ORFs and technical costs associated with routing options, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Routing Fees will enable it to recover the
increased costs it incurs to route Customer orders to away markets.
    The Exchange believes that amending the Non-Customer Routing Fees
from $0.95 to $0.97 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same Non-Customer
Routing Fee to all Non-Customer orders routed away. The Exchange
believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders routed to
PHLX from a Fixed Fee of $0.10 to $0.12 per contract, in addition to
the actual transaction fee, is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same Fixed Fee to
all orders routed to PHLX in addition to the transaction fee assessed
by that market. With respect to BX Options, the Exchange believes that
amending the Customer Routing Fee for orders routed to BX Options from
a Fixed Fee of $0.10 to $0.12 per contract is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange would assess the same
Fixed Fee to all Customer orders routed to BX Options. With respect
routing Customer orders to all other away markets (except PHLX and BX
Options) the Exchange believes that amending the Customer Routing Fee
from $0.20 to $0.22 per contract, in addition to the actual transaction
fee assessed) is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the
Exchange would assess the same fee to all Customer orders routed to
away markets, provided the away market does not pay a rebate. The
Exchange believes that increasing the Routing Fee to away markets
(other than PHLX and BX Options), when the away market pays a rebate,
from $0.10 to $0.12 per contract is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all Customer orders routed to away markets
(other than PHLX and BX Options) would be assessed the same fee,
provided the away market paid a rebate.
    The Exchange would uniformly assess a $0.12 per contract Fixed Fee
to orders routed to NASDAQ OMX exchanges because the Exchange is
passing along the saving realized by leveraging NASDAQ OMX's
infrastructure and scale to market participants when those orders are
routed to PHLX or BX Options and is providing those savings to all
market participants. Furthermore, it is important to note that when
orders are routed to an away market they are routed based on price
first.\11\ The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess a fixed cost of $0.12 per contract to route
orders to PHLX and BX Options because the cost, in terms of actual cash
outlays, to the Exchange to route to those markets is lower. For
example, costs related to routing to PHLX and BX Options are lower as
compared to other away markets because NES is utilized by all three
exchanges to route orders.\12\ NES and the three NASDAQ OMX options
markets have a common data center and staff that are responsible for
the day-to-day operations of NES. Because the three exchanges are in a
common data center, Routing Fees are reduced because costly expenses
related to, for example, telecommunication lines to obtain connectivity
are avoided when routing orders in this instance. The costs related to
connectivity to route orders to other NASDAQ OMX exchanges are lower
than the costs to route to a non-NASDAQ OMX exchange. When routing
orders to non-NASDAQ OMX exchanges, the Exchange incurs costly
connectivity charges related to telecommunication lines, membership and
access fees, and other related costs when routing orders. Market
participants may submit orders to the Exchange as ineligible for
routing or ``DNR'' to avoid Routing Fees.\13\ Also, orders are routed
to an away market based on price first.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NASDAQ Rules at Chapter VI, Section 11(e) (Order
Routing).
    \12\ See Chapter VI, Section 11 of the BX Options and NOM Rules.
    \13\ See note 12.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose
any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposal creates a burden on intra-market competition because the
Exchange is applying the same Routing Fee increase of $0.02 per
contract to all market participants. The Exchange will continue to
assess separate Customer Routing Fees. Customers will continue to
receive the lowest fees as compared to Non-Customers when routing
orders, as is the case today. Other options exchanges also assess lower
Routing Fees for customer orders as compared to Non-Customer
orders.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ BATS assesses lower customer routing fees as compared to
non-customer routing fees per the away market. For example BATS
assesses Phlx customer routing fees of $0.45 per contract and an ISE
non-customer routing fee of $0.65 per contract. See BATS BZX
Exchange Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal would allow the Exchange to continue to
recoup its costs when routing both Non-Customer and Customer orders.
The Exchange continues to pass along savings realized by leveraging
NASDAQ OMX's infrastructure and scale to market participants when
Customer orders are routed to PHLX and BX Options and is providing
those savings to all market participants. Today, other options
exchanges also assess fixed routing fees to recoup costs incurred by
the exchange to route orders to away markets.\16\ Market participants
may submit orders to the Exchange as ineligible for routing or ``DNR''
to avoid Routing Fees.\17\ Also, orders are routed to an away market
based on price first.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See CBOE's Fees Schedule and ISE's Fee Schedule.
    \17\ See note 12.
    \18\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\19\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the

Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance
of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 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 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-NASDAQ-2014-055 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-055. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2014-055 and
should be submitted on or before June 20, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12518 Filed 5-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 210)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 61584-61585]
[DOCID:fr31oc07-28]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2007-29354]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, HI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is extending the comment period for its notice
of proposed rulemaking published October 3, 2007, to create a security
zone in the waters of Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, and on the land of the
jetty south of Nawiliwili Park, including the jetty access road
commonly known as Jetty Road. The proposed security zone is intended to
enable the Coast Guard and its law enforcement partners to better
protect people, vessels, and facilities in and around Nawiliwili Harbor
in the face of non-compliant obstructers who have impeded, and threaten
to continue impeding, the safe passage of the Hawaii Superferry in
Nawiliwili Harbor. The proposed rule complements, but does not replace
or supersede, existing regulations that establish a moving 100-yard
security zone around large passenger vessels like the Hawaii
Superferry.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before November 20, 2007.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments and related material, identified by
Coast Guard docket number USCG-2007-29354, in any of the three methods
listed below. To avoid duplication, please use only one of the
following methods:
    (1) Mail: Lieutenant Sean Fahey, Coast Guard District 14 (dl), PJKK
Federal Building, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, HI 96850.
    (2) Electronically: E-mail to Lieutenant Sean Fahey at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>using the

subject line ``Comment--Kauai Security Zone.''
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    All comments will be reviewed as they are received. Additionally,
all comments submitted will ultimately be available for viewing on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Sean Fahey, U.S. Coast
Guard District 14 at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Request for Additional Comments

    On October 3, 2007, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Security Zone; Nawiliwili Harbor, Kauai, Hawaii'' in
the Federal Register (72 FR 56308). The comment period for the NPRM was
originally set to expire on October 24, 2007. Although we received many
comments on the subject rule, a few people wishing to submit comments
expressed difficulty using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, one of the
four methods available to submit comments on the NPRM. Recently, the
Coast Guard migrated its online rulemaking docket from the Docket
Management System (DMS) to the Federal Docket Management System (FMS)
(72 FR 54315, Sept. 24, 2007), and this migration was accompanied by
transition difficulties and delays in comments being posted on FDMS. So
we will continue to accept comments on the propose rule until November
20, 2007. Comments may be submitted in one of the three methods listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this rule. Based on the comments we
receive, we may change the rule.
    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please identify the docket
number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-29354), indicate the specific
section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the
reason for each comment. We recommend that you include your name,
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in
the body of your document to ensure that you can be identified as the
submitter. This also allows us to contact you in the event further
information is needed or if there are questions. For example, if we
cannot read your submission due to technical difficulties and you
cannot be contacted, your submission may not be considered. Please
submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would
like to know your comments reached us, please enclose a stamped, self-
addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Temporary Final Rule

    Concurrent with this notice to extend the comment period, the Coast
Guard is also publishing a temporary final rule for a security zone in
Nawiliwili Harbor. That temporary final rule can be found elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register. The temporary final rule is being
issued on an emergency basis to ensure that there is a security zone in
place after the current security zone (72 FR 50877, September 5, 2007)
expires on October 31, 2007. That temporary final rule is of limited
duration--it will be in effect from November 1, 2007, through November
30, 2007--and is necessary to ensure the safety and security of water-
based and land-based obstructers, as well as the passengers and crew of
the Superferry, should the Superferry transit through Nawiliwili
Harbor.

Public Meeting

    During this extended comment period, you may also submit a request
for a public meeting. Based on the comments we receive, we may choose
to hold a public meeting. You may submit a request for a public meeting
to Lieutenant Sean Fahey at U.S. Coast Guard District 14, PJKK Federal
Building, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, Hawaii 96850, explaining why
one would be beneficial. The deadline for submitting requests is
November 20, 2007.
    If we determine that a public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we
will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register.

    Dated: October 24, 2007.
Sally Brice-O'Hara,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 07-5412 Filed 10-26-07; 2:34 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 78 (Monday, April 24, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24702-24705]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08583]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2023-0039; FRL-10869-01-OCSPP]

Oxirane, 2-Methyl-, Polymer With Oxirane, Ether With D-Glucitol
(6:1); Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1) when used as an inert ingredient
in a pesticide chemical formulation. Delta Analytical Corporation, on
behalf of Borchers Americas, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the
need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of oxirane,
2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1) on food or
feed commodities when used in accordance with these exemptions.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 24, 2023. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 23, 2023 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-2023-0039, is available at
https://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 and the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For the latest
status information on EPA/DC services, docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration
Division (7505T), 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 Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), 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-2023-0039 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
June 23, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b), although the Office
of the Administrative Law Judges, which houses the Hearing Clerk,
encourages parties to file objections and hearing requests
electronically. See https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-05/documents/2020-04-10_-_order_urging_electronic_service_and_filing.pdf.
    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-2023-0039, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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#express.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of February 23, 2023 (88 FR11402) (FRL-
10579-01), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11713) filed by Delta Analytical Corporation, 12510 Prosperity Drive,
Suite 160, Silver Spring, MD 20904 on behalf of Borchers Americas,
Inc., 811 Sharon Drive, Westlake, OH 44145. The petition requested that
40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer
with oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1), (CAS Reg. No. 56449-05-9).
That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The
Agency did not receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(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 use 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 an exemption from the
requirement of 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 . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1) conforms to the definition of a
polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria
that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
silicon, and sulfur.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize. An
available biodegradation study supports that oxirane, 2-methyl-,
polymer with oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1) is not readily
biodegradable (MRID 52074101).
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory or manufactured under an applicable
TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 Daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40
CFR 723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria: specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e):
    The polymer's minimum number average MW is greater than or equal to
10,000 Daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric material
below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW 1,000.
    Thus, oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with D-
glucitol (6:1) meets the criteria for a polymer to be considered low
risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in
this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary,
inhalation, or dermal exposure to oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1).

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1) could be present in all raw and
processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-
occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number
average MW of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with D-
glucitol (6:1) is 10,000 Daltons. Generally, a polymer of this size
would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or
through intact human skin. Since oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1) conforms to the criteria that
identify a low-risk polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated
with any potential exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable.
The Agency has determined

that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. 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 oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether
with D-glucitol (6:1) to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any
other substances, and oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether
with D-glucitol (6:1) does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer
with oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1) 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.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    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 Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either
retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety
factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a
different factor. Due to the expected low toxicity of oxirane, 2-
methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1), EPA has not
used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same reasons
no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and
children.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1).

VIII. Other Considerations

Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of oxirane, 2-
methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1) from the
requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), 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 on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance
exemption 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).

XI. 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: April 18, 2023.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending
40 CFR chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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.  180.960, amend table 1 to the section by adding, in
alphabetical order, the polymer ``Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with
oxirane, ether with D-glucitol (6:1), minimum number average molecular
weight (in amu) of 10,000'' to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   180.960
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Oxirane, 2-methyl-, polymer with oxirane, ether with D-       56449-05-9
 glucitol (6:1), minimum number average molecular weight
 (in amu) of 10,000.....................................

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-08583 Filed 4-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6257-6258]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01974]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[CERCLA-10-2022-0251; FRL-10531-01-Region 10]

Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement for
Recovery of Past Response Costs at the Logan Street Mercury Response
Site in Ada County, Idaho

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA), notice is
hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has entered
into a proposed settlement, embodied in an Administrative Settlement
Agreement for Recovery of Past Response Costs (Settlement Agreement),
with the following settling party: Jones Family Trust. Under the
Settlement Agreement, the settling party agrees to pay a total of
$150,000 plus interest to reimburse the EPA for costs the EPA has
incurred at the Logan Street Mercury Response Site (Site).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 2, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by the EPA Docket Number
for the Settlement Agreement, CERCLA-10-2022-0251, by any of the
following methods: Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method). Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Email: Ms. Christina Vieira da
Rosa, [email protected]. Mail: EPA Region 10, ATTN:
Christina Vieira da Rosa, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of
Regional Counsel, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, M/S: 11-C07, Seattle,
WA 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christina Vieira da Rosa, Assistant

Regional Counsel, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155, M/S: 11-
C07, Seattle, WA 98101; Email: [email protected]; Phone
(206) 553-2601.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by the EPA Docket Number for the
Settlement Agreement, CERCLA-10-2022-0251, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the other methods
identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about Confidential Business Information or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

Background Information

    Notice of this proposed Settlement Agreement is made in accordance
with Section 122(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i). The Settlement
Agreement concerns costs incurred by the EPA in connection with the
Logan Street Mercury Response Site, a CERCLA response action in Ada
County, Idaho, where mercury contamination has come to be located.
Jones Family Trust, which agrees to pay the EPA a total of $150,000,
plus interest, is the only party to the Settlement Agreement. Because
the EPA is not recovering one hundred percent of its past costs, this
Settlement Agreement represents a compromise of the EPA's costs. The
settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant
to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C 9606 and 9607(a).
    The EPA will consider all comments received on the Settlement
Agreement in accordance with the DATES and ADDRESSES sections of this
Notice and may modify or withdraw its consent to the Settlement
Agreement if comments received disclose facts or considerations that
indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
The EPA's response to any comments received will be available for
public inspection at: https://semspub.epa.gov/src/collections/10/AR/IDN001020504.
    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657.

Sheila Fleming,
Acting Director, Superfund and Emergency Management Division, Region
10.
[FR Doc. 2023-01974 Filed 1-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P