[Federal Register: April 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 17938-17941]
[DOCID:fr07ap06-118]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53584; File No. SR-Phlx-2006-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change and Amendments No. 1 and 2
Thereto Relating to Dissemination of Index Values

March 31, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on January 12, 2006, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Phlx.
The Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change on March 23,
2006 and submitted notification of withdrawal of Amendment No. 1 on
March 24, 2006. On March 24, 2006, the Phlx filed Amendment No. 2 to
the proposed rule change.\3\ 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\ Amendment No. 2 supersedes and replaces the original filing
in its entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx proposes to continue the listing and trading of options on
various stock indices upon making certain changes to the procedures for
dissemination of the values of the indices. Specifically, Phlx has
determined to license the current and closing index values underlying
options currently listed pursuant to Commission approval pursuant to
Rule 19b-4 rule filings, namely, the Phlx Gold/Silver Sector\SM\
(``XAU\SM\''), Phlx Oil Service Sector\SM\ (``OSX\SM\''), Phlx
Semiconductor Sector (``SOX\SM\''), and the Phlx Utility Sector\SM\
(``UTY\SM\'') (together, the ``Approved Index Options''), as well as
values of most of Phlx's other proprietary indexes, to its wholly owned
subsidiary, the Philadelphia Board of Trade (``PBOT''),\4\ for the
purpose of selling, reproducing, and distributing the index values over
PBOT's Market Data Distribution Network (``MDDN'').\5\ The Exchange
proposes that the index values underlying the Approved Index Options
will no longer be disseminated as described in their respective Rule
19b-4 filings and approval orders.\6\ The Exchange is also seeking
approval to cease disseminating the current and closing index values of
all its proprietary indexes over the facilities of the Consolidated
Tape Association (``CTA''), and to disseminate such values solely over
the PBOT's MDDN.\7\ Finally, the Exchange is seeking approval for the
subscriber fees to be charged to market data vendors by PBOT for all
the values of Phlx's proprietary indexes disseminated by PBOT's MDDN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ PBOT is a dormant designated contract market regulated by
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (the ``CFTC''). Until
November 30, 2005, when it became dormant, PBOT listed futures
contracts on a number of foreign currencies. PBOT has applied to the
CFTC for reinstatement for dormancy and expects to launch a new
electronic trading platform, PBOT XL, in the near future.
    \5\ Phlx also lists and trades options on a number of other
stock indices whose values will not be disseminated by PBOT. Those
indices will continue to be maintained, and options thereon will
continue to be listed, as they are today. PBOT has, however, secured
a similar license from one other index provider, and Phlx
anticipates that PBOT will enter into similar license agreements
with proprietors of other indexes underlying options traded on the
Phlx.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 20437 (December 2,
1983), 48 FR 55229 (December 9, 1983) (XAU); 38207 (January 27,
1997), 62 FR 5268 (February 4, 1997) (OSX); 34546 (August 18, 1994),
59 FR 43881 (August 25, 1994) (SOX); 24889 (September 9, 1987), 52
FR 35021 (September 16, 1987) (UTY).
    \7\ Phlx's proprietary indexes are, in addition to the indexes
underlying the Approved Index Options, the Phlx Defense Sector\SM\,
Phlx Drug Sector\SM\, Phlx Europe Sector\SM\, Phlx Housing
Sector\SM\, and the Phlx World Energy Index\SM\, all of which were
listed pursuant to Phlx Rule 1009A(b), the Exchange's generic index
option listing standard rule. Phlx's proprietary indexes are owned
and maintained by Phlx. The Exchange has determined not to remove
the Phlx World Energy Index\SM\ (``XWE''\SM\) and the Phlx Europe
Sector\SM\ (``XEX''\SM\) from CTA immediately, but is requesting
approval to do so when and if the Exchange determines that
disseminating these indexes in the same manner as its other
proprietary indexes will be appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phlx 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 Phlx 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 the proposed rule change is to effectuate changes to
index dissemination procedures whereby PBOT will be disseminating index
value information, as described above. Currently, the Exchange realizes
no revenues from the sale of current and closing index values
disseminated over CTA that are not shared with other CTA Plan
participants but wants to going forward.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Currently, market data vendors pay a $200.00 monthly fee to
CTA for the right to redistribute current and closing index values
on a real time basis, together with delayed last sale data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In anticipation of the launch of PBOT XL, the PBOT's fully
electronic matching engine, PBOT has contracted with SAVVIS
Communications to provide extranet services for the distribution of
certain futures market data. This new internet protocol multicast
network is known as the PBOT MDDN.\9\ It is anticipated that PBOT's
MDDN will disseminate quote and trade information regarding futures
contracts executed on the PBOT, but will not disseminate quote and
trade information regarding securities products. Further, as proposed
herein, PBOT's MDDN will disseminate index value information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Additional information regarding the PBOT MDDN can be found
on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.phlx.com/pbot/Market_Data/mktdata.html
.

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

    Additionally, in order to facilitate creation of revenues from the
sale of current and closing values for Phlx proprietary indexes, the
Phlx will remove those values from CTA. At that time, those index
values will not be available from CTA and will be available only
through the PBOT's MDDN.\10\ They will, however, continue to be
disseminated by major market data vendors, as explained below.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As noted above, for business reasons the Phlx World Energy
IndexSM and the Phlx Europe SectorSM will not
initially be disseminated over the MDDN but will continue to be
disseminated over the facilities of CTA. See supra note 7.
    \11\ PBOT has and will also enter into license agreements with
one or more third party index providers to sell, reproduce, and
distribute index values which underlie other Phlx traded options
listed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(e) under the Act. Those index values
will also be removed from CTA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contemplation of removing the index values from CTA, the
Exchange has entered into a license agreement with PBOT in which the
Exchange granted to PBOT, subject to the terms and conditions set forth
therein, a non-exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, worldwide right and
license to sell, offer for sale, perform, display, reproduce and
distribute the current and closing index values derived from the Phlx
proprietary indices to be disseminated over the MDDN.\12\ Phlx or its
third party designee will objectively calculate and make available to
PBOT every 15 seconds real time current and closing index values on
each trading day so that PBOT may market, sell, and distribute the
values to third parties. The three industry leading market data vendors
will be making the real time market data available to subscribers, as
will several mid-tier vendors.\13\ Finally, the parties acknowledged
and agreed that the goodwill created from PBOT's exercise of its rights
under the agreement would constitute the full consideration for the
grant of licenses therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The license does not include the right to sublicense,
modify, improve or create derivative works of, the values or the
indices.
    \13\ The term ``vendors'' as used herein includes subvendors
which receive the market data feed from vendors rather than directly
from PBOT, but which execute the same agreement with PBOT that
vendors execute and pay the same subscriber fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PBOT, in turn, will execute and has executed agreements with
various vendors of market data for the right to receive, store, and
retransmit the current and closing index values transmitted over the
MDDN.\14\ The subscriber fees payable to PBOT by vendors for the use or
resale of these values are set forth in those agreements. Phlx is
proposing that all vendors will be charged, based upon usage by their
subscribers,\15\ a monthly fee of (a) $1.00 per ``Device,'' as defined
in the agreement,\16\ that is used by vendors and their subscribers to
receive and re-transmit Phlx proprietary sector index current and
settlement values on a real time basis and disseminated every 15
seconds, and (b) $.00025 per request for snapshot data, which is
essentially market data that is refreshed no more frequently than once
every 60 seconds, or $1,500 per month for unlimited snapshot data
requests.\17\ The fees are summarized in table format below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Approximately 25 vendors, including for example Bloomberg
L.P., Telekurs Financial Information Ltd. and Thomson Financial,
have already entered into such market data agreements with PBOT. At
least three of the vendors have elected to offer only the continuous
real-time market data and will not offer snapshot or delayed data.
The fees described in this proposed rule change cover values of all
the indexes disseminated over the MDDN.
    \15\ These fees will be subject to the possibility of a 15%
Administrative Fee deduction as described in footnote 18.
    \16\ The definition of ``Device'' in the agreement is complex
and incorporates a number of other defined terms. The agreement
provides that ``Device'' shall mean, in case of each Subscriber and
in such Subscriber's discretion, either any Terminal or any End
User. For the avoidance of doubt, a Subscriber's Device may be
exclusively Terminals, exclusively End Users or a combination of
Terminals or End Users and shall be reported in a manner that is
consistent with the way the Vendor identifies such Subscriber's
access to Vendor's data.
    By way of further explanation, an ``End User'' is an individual
authorized or allowed by a vendor or a Subscriber to access and
display real time market data that distributed by PBOT over the
MDDN; and a ``Terminal'' is any type of equipment (fixed or
portable) that accesses and displays such market data. For example,
a vendor whose Subscribers collectively may access the index values
on a real-time basis through 10,000 Devices would be assessed a
monthly fee of $10,000. A vendor which makes available unlimited
snapshot data to its customers would be assessed a monthly fee of
$1500.00 regardless of the number of End Users or Devices involved.
    \17\ The index values may also be made available by vendors on a
delayed basis (i.e., no sooner than twenty minutes following receipt
of the data by vendors) at no charge. The Exchange also notes that
devices used in customer service areas or for purposes such as
quality control, software programming, sales demonstrations, or
promotions are not subject to any fees.
    \18\ All market data vendors which provide market data to
200,000 or more Devices in any month qualify for a 15%
Administrative Fee deduction for that month, to be deducted from the
monthly Subscriber Fees that they collect and are obligated to pay
PBOT under the Vendor/Subvendor Agreement. Phlx also believes that
the fees to be charged by PBOT are consistent with the requirements
of Commission Rule 603, Distribution, consolidation, and display of
information with respect to quotations for and transactions in NMS
stocks, in that the fees are fair and reasonable and not
unreasonably discriminatory.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Real-time continuous
       Fee (per month)             market data          Delayed only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Per Device/User ID/Terminal   $1.00 per Device*...  None.
 ID.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Fee (per month)        Snapshot market data      Delayed only
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              $0.0025 per snapshot  None.
                               request *.
                               OR.................  ....................

                              $1,500 per month for  None.
                               unlimited snapshot
                               requests*.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Vendors which provide market data to 200,000 or more Devices in any
  month qualify for a 15% Administrative Fee deduction for that
  month.\18\

    Separate charges will apply for futures market data, which is not
the subject of this proposed rule change. However, the agreements will
provide that PBOT may change any of the fees enumerated in the
agreement by giving the vendor or subvendor advance written notice of
such changes.\19\ Under the agreements and consistent with industry
practice, vendors will be free to assess whatever fees they agree to
with subscribers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The Commission notes that any such fee changes would need
to be submitted under Section 19(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the various proposed rule changes filed by the Exchange seeking
Commission approval for the listing and trading of the Approved Index
Options, the Exchange made certain representations regarding the manner
in which index values would be disseminated. The Commission's approval
orders also described the index value dissemination procedures in some
cases. The Exchange now proposes to continue the listing and trading of
options on various stock indices upon ceasing the dissemination of
index values over CTA Tape B as described above. However, current index
values will continue to be disseminated as required by Phlx Rule
1100A.\20\ Moreover, the current index values will be widely
disseminated by one or more major market data vendors at least every 15
seconds during trading hours on the Exchange.\21\ Phlx will also
continue to maintain the indexes underlying the Approved Index Options
as described in their respective Rule 19b-4 filings and approval
orders. Phlx anticipates that it may list options on new Phlx
proprietary indexes in the future, in which event the underlying
current and closing values of those new indexes will also be
disseminated over the PBOT MDDN and not over CTA Tape B. Further, the
Exchange may determine at a later date to remove the Phlx World Energy
Index\SM\ (``XWE'' \SM\) and the Phlx Europe Sector\SM\ (``XEX'' \SM\)
and disseminate their values over PBOT's MDDN, like the other Phlx
proprietary indexes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Phlx Rule 1100A(a) provides that ``[t]he Exchange shall
disseminate or shall assure that the closing index value is
disseminated after the close of business and the current index value
is disseminated from time-to-time on days on which transactions in
index options are made on the Exchange.''
    \21\ Current underlying index values for narrow-based index
options trading pursuant to Phlx Rule 1009A(b) and Rule 19b-4(e)
under the Act are also reported at least once every 15 seconds
during the time the index options are traded on the Exchange
pursuant to Phlx Rule 1009A(b)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its amended proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \22\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \23\ in particular, in that it is designed
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, by permitting the Exchange to cause the dissemination
of index values in a manner that will enhance the value to the Exchange
of indexes which the Exchange owns, while continuing to maintain the
listing and trading of options on these indices as an investment
alternative available to investors. The Exchange also believes that its
proposal furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \24\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
among persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes that PBOT's
proposed fee structure is reasonable and equitable, as it is based on
the type of data received (real-time, delayed and snapshot), which is,
in turn, generally based on the timeliness of the data. As noted above,
market data vendors which provide market data to 200,000 or more
Devices in any given month qualify for a 15% Administrative Fee for
that month, to be deducted from the monthly subscriber fees that they
collect and are obligated to pay PBOT under the Vendor/Subvendor
Agreement.\25\ The Exchange believes that the 15% Administrative Fee is
equitable because any vendor which provides market data to 200,000 or
more Devices in any given month will qualify for the Administrative
Fee. PBOT is offering the Administrative Fee as an incentive for large
market data vendors to carry the data disseminated by the PBOT network.
Phlx also believes that the fees to be charged by PBOT are consistent
with the requirements of Commission Rule 603, Distribution,
consolidation, and display of information with respect to quotations
for and transactions in NMS stocks, in that the fees are fair and
reasonable and not unreasonably discriminatory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \25\ See footnote 18 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Although the Exchange received no written comments on the proposed
rule change to continue listing and trading the Approved Index Options
following changes in the index dissemination procedures or the level of
fees to be charged by PBOT, the Exchange did receive one comment on the
Exchange's underlying decision to remove index values from the
consolidated tape and disseminate them over the PBOT MDDN.\26\ While
the commenter did not specify the basis for his conclusion that the
proposed changes would reduce the volume in index options to zero, the
Exchange continues to believe that continued listing and trading of the
Approved Index Options after underlying index values are removed from
the consolidated tape is appropriate, as are the relocation of all Phlx
proprietary index values from the consolidated tape to the PBOT MDDN
and the fees to be assessed by PBOT, and, so long as the values
continue to be widely disseminated by one or more market data vendors,
is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See e-mail from Brian Schaer to the Exchange dated
Thursday, August 25, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or

(ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    (A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
    The Commission is considering granting accelerated approval of the
proposed rule change at the end of a 15-day comment period.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ The Phlx has requested accelerated approval of this
proposed rule change prior to the 30th day after the date of
publication of the notice of the filing thereof, following the
conclusion of a 15-day comment period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the amended
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 No. SR-Phlx-2006-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2006-04. 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 Phlx. 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-Phlx-2006-04 and should be submitted on or before April
24, 2006.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-5057 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87990-87991]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29161]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79432; File No. SR-MIAX-2016-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 510 To Extend the Penny
Pilot Program

November 30, 2016.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 November 21, 2016, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I, II, and III 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 Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Rule 510,
Interpretations and Policies .01 to extend the pilot program for the
quoting and trading of certain options in pennies (the ``Penny Pilot
Program'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is a participant in an industry-wide pilot program
that provides for the quoting and trading of certain option classes in
penny increments (the ``Penny Pilot Program'' or ``Program''). The
Penny Pilot Program allows the quoting and trading of certain option
classes in minimum increments of $0.01 for all series in such option
classes with a price of less than $3.00; and in minimum increments of
$0.05 for all series in such option classes with a price of $3.00 or
higher. Options overlying the PowerShares QQQTM (``QQQ''),
SPDR[supreg] S&P 500[supreg] ETF (``SPY''), and iShares[supreg] Russell
2000 ETF (``IWM''), however, are quoted and traded in minimum
increments of $0.01 for all series regardless of the price. The Penny
Pilot Program was initiated at the then existing option exchanges in
January 2007 \3\ and currently includes more than 300 of the most
active option classes. The Penny Pilot Program is currently scheduled
to expire on December 31, 2016.\4\ The purpose of the proposed rule
change is to extend the Penny Pilot Program in its current format
through June 30, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 55154 (January 23,
2007), 72 FR 4743 (February 1, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2006-92); 55161
(January 24, 2007), 72 FR 4754 (February 1, 2007) (SR-ISE-2006-62);
54688 (December 6, 2006), 71 FR 74979 (December 13, 2006) (SR-Phlx-
2006-74); 54590 (October 12, 2006), 71 FR 61525 (October 18, 2006)
(SR-NYSEArca-2006-73); and 54741 (November 9, 2006), 71 FR 67176
(November 20, 2006) (SR-Amex-2006-106).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78080 (June 15,
2016), 81 FR 40377 (June 21, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-16) (extending the
Penny Pilot Program from June 30, 2016, to December 31, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the extension of the Penny Pilot Program through
June 30, 2017, the Exchange proposes to extend one other date in the
Rule. Currently, Interpretations and Policies .01 states that the
Exchange will replace any Penny Pilot issues that have been delisted
with the next most actively traded multiply listed option classes that
are not yet included in the Penny Pilot Program, and that the
replacement issues will be selected based on trading activity in the
previous six months. Such option classes will be added to the Penny
Pilot Program on the second trading day following July 1, 2016.\5\
Because this date has expired and the Exchange intends to continue this
practice for the duration of the Penny Pilot Program, the Exchange is
proposing to amend the Rule to reflect that such option classes will be
added to the Penny Pilot Program on the second trading day following
January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The month immediately preceding a replacement class's
addition to the Pilot Program (i.e., June) is not used for purposes
of the six-month analysis. For example, a replacement added on the
second trading day following July 1, 2016, will be identified based
on trading activity from December 1, 2015, through May 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this provision is to reflect the new date on which
replacement issues may be added to the Penny Pilot Program.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX believes that its proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \7\ 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, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the proposed
rule change, which extends the Penny Pilot Program for six months,
allows the Exchange to continue to participate in a program that has
been viewed as beneficial to traders, investors and public customers
and viewed as successful by the other options exchanges participating
in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 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. Specifically, the Exchange
believes that, by extending the expiration of the Pilot Program, the
proposed rule change will allow for further analysis of the Penny Pilot
Program and a determination of how the Program should be structured in
the future. In doing so, the proposed rule change will also serve to
promote regulatory clarity and consistency, thereby reducing burdens on
the marketplace, facilitating investor protection, and fostering a
competitive environment. In addition, consistent with previous
practices, the Exchange believes the other options exchanges will be
filing similar extensions of the Penny Pilot Program.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change along
with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change,
at least five business days prior to the date of filing of the
proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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-MIAX-2016-45 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-MIAX-2016-45. 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 20549-1090, 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-MIAX-2016-45 and should be
submitted on or before December 27, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29161 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 18205]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06399]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 30, 2023.

PLACE: The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the
Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners,
the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend
the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the
matters also may be present.
    In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting
changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website
at https://www.sec.gov.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10),
permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
    The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the
following topics:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
    Resolution of litigation claims; and
    Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of
adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.
    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b.

    Dated: March 23, 2023.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06399 Filed 3-23-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 29517-29518]
[DOCID:fr22jn09-103]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0015]

The Hexavalent Chromium Standard; 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 comments concerning its proposal to extend OMB
approval of the information collection requirements contained in the
Hexavalent Chromium (VI) (29 CFR 1910.1026) Standard, and on a
potential change to burden hour and cost estimates to the Standard's
employee exposure notification requirement in response to a court
remand.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
August 21, 2009.

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 longer
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-2009-0015,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, 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 Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2009-
0015). 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 may contact Jamaa 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 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).
    OSHA published the final rule governing occupational exposure to
hexavalent chromium on February 28, 2006. The information collection
requirements specified in the Chromium (VI) standard protect employees
from the adverse health effects that may result from occupational
exposure to hexavalent chromium. The major information collection
requirements in the Standard include conducting employee exposure
monitoring, notifying employees of their chromium (VI) exposures,
implementing medical surveillance of employees, providing examining
physicians with specific information, implementing a respiratory
protection program, demarcating regulated areas, implementing employee
information and training programs, notifying laundry personnel of
chromium (VI) hazards, and maintaining employees' exposure monitoring
and medical surveillance records for specific periods.
    A number of parties subsequently challenged several provisions of
the final CR(VI) standards in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit (see Public Citizen and Edison Electric Institute v.
U.S. Department of Labor, XX F.3d XXXX (3d Cir. 2009)). In its
decision, the court found that OSHA failed to explain why the Cr(VI)
standards require employee notification only of chromium exposures
exceeding the permissible exposure limit, noting that prior health
standards required notification of all exposure monitoring results. The
court remanded the standards, and ordered OSHA to provide an
explanation for not including notification of all exposure monitoring
results, or to revise the standards appropriately. OSHA currently is
considering how to respond to the court's remand order.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    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,
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

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Chromium (VI) Standard (29 CFR
1910.1026).
    The Agency 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: Hexavalent Chromium Standard (29 CFR 1910.1026).
    OMB Number: 1218-0252.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal Government;
State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Number of Respondents: 78,126.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Time per response ranges from 15 minutes
(.25 hour) to notify employees of exposure monitoring results to 20
hours to conduct exposure monitoring.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 725,319 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $47,751,607.

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 (FAX); 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-2009-0015). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or 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 name, date, and the 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 copyrighted 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

    Jordan Barab, Acting 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. 5-2007 (72 FR
31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 17th day of June 2009.
Jordan Barab,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E9-14578 Filed 6-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4155-4156]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01335]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13346-003]

PayneBridge, LLC; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380 (Order No.
486, 52 Federal Register 47,897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed PayneBridge, LLC's application for an original license to
construct and operate the Williams Dam Water Power Project. The
proposed 4.0-megawatt project would be located on the East Fork White
River in Lawrence County, Indiana, near the town of Williams, at an
existing dam owned and operated by the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources. The project does not occupy any federal land.
    Staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA), which analyzes the
potential environmental effects of licensing the project and concludes
that licensing the project, with appropriate protective measures, would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
FERCOnlineSupport@

ferc.gov or toll-free number at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-
8659.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file the requested information using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-
3676 (toll free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic
filing, please send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The
first page of any filing should include docket number P-13346-003.
    Please contact Aaron Liberty by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>if you have any questions.

    Dated: January 16, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01335 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


From:  Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 12:15 AM To:  David Ailor (dailor@accci.org<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:  final draft enclosure 1

Hi. Ive cleaned up Enclosure 1 from the version I last sent you both. I made more changes to reduce duplicated requests for information, moving a number of items from first couple pages to further back in the document. In other cases, instead of moving information that ACCCI had said was difficult to answer, I left it where it was but indicated that the answers could be submitted with later sections. But then I added a "catch all" subsection in the later section for these questions in case people skipped the questions, so that they would be reminded later.

I also added the schedule in terms of the week when each section is due, from the time the letter is stamped. This will make it easier for me to suffer through the delays the letters sometimes undergo before they are signed. This way you will get your full response time rather than be cut down because of delays at EPA if I were to put actual dates in the ICR. However, after the ICR letter gets stamped, I will send out the actual dates to everyone by email so its clear. I followed SunCokes recommendation for timing. As far as Im concerned, if I receive the responses before I get in on Monday of the following week the sections are due, it wont matter to me that it was not delivered by end of week before.

I dont plan on making any major changes to Enclosure 1, but if you see something that looks odd or wrong let me know.

I am still waiting to hear from the measurement group as to their decisions on SunCokes request for alternatives in testing. I am meeting with them this week to get their decision on the issues still unresolved. I hope to be able to get you the final draft of Enclosure 2 sometime next week. We will still need to get the cover letter reviewed through EPA and also discuss with you both the facility addresses and contacts, especially for Enclosure 2. So likely to be at least another month before we would send it out.

Thanks again for your comments.

Regards, Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D. Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02) Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< Coke ICR Intro-Enclosure I-DLJ-01-29-16.docx >>


[Federal Register: September 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 179)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53162-53163]
[DOCID:fr15se08-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0593-200818b; FRL-8714-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Alabama:
Volatile Organic Compounds and Open Burning

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of revisions to the Alabama State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management on January 8, 2008. The revisions include
modifications to Alabama's Volatile Organic Compounds and Control of
Open Burning and Incineration regulations, found at Alabama
Administrative Code Chapters 335-3-1 and 335-3-3, respectively. This
proposed action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air
Act.
    This SIP revision also contains a letter addressing the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which EPA will consider
separately.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 15, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0593,'' by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0593,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Stacy Harder, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the

Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacy Harder, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Ms. Harder can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: September 4, 2008.
Russell L. Wright, Jr.,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E8-21313 Filed 9-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 64)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17918-17924]
[DOCID:fr02ap08-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0338; FRL-8356-7]

Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for combined residues
of flonicamid and its metabolites TFNA, TFNA-AM, and TFNG in or on
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B; hop, dried cones; okra; radish,
tops; turnip, greens; vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B;
and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C. It also increases
established tolerances for combined residues of flonicamid and its
metabolites TFNA and TFNA-AM in or on cattle, fat; cattle, meat; egg;
goat, fat; goat, meat; horse, fat; horse, meat; milk; poultry, fat;
poultry, meat; poultry, meat byproducts; sheep, fat; and sheep, meat.
Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these
tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). This
regulation also removes existing tolerances for flonicamid and its
metabolites on mustard greens and potatoes which are superseded by the
new tolerances on ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B'' and
``vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C,'' respectively.

DATES: This regulation is effective April 2, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before June 2, 2008, 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-2007-0338. To access the
electronic docket, go to 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Stanton, 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 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-2007-0338 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 June 2, 2008.
    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-2007-0338, 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 June 27, 2007 (72 FR 35237) (FRL-8133-
4), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E7081) by Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College
Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540-6635. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.613 be amended by establishing tolerances for
combined residues of the insecticide flonicamid, [N-(cyanomethyl)-4-
(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide] and its metabolites TFNA [4-
trifluoromethylnicotinic acid], TFNA-AM [4-trifluoromethylnicotinamide]
TFNG [N-(4-trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine], in or on vegetables,
root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B at 0.45 parts per million (ppm);
radish, tops at 16 ppm; vegetables, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at
0.2 ppm; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 16 ppm; turnip, greens
at 16 ppm; hop, dried cone at 7.0 ppm; and okra at 0.4 ppm. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences
Corporation, the registrant, which is available to the public in the
docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in
response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that the proposed tolerance on ``vegetables, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B'' should be increased to 0.60 ppm and that
existing tolerances for several livestock commodities should be
increased. The reasons for these changes are explained in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will

result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue....'' These provisions were added to 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 flonicamid and its metabolites TFNA, TFNA-AM,
and TFNG on Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B at 16 parts per million
(ppm); hop, dried cones at 7.0 ppm; okra at 0.40 ppm; radish, tops at
16 ppm; turnip, greens at 16 ppm; vegetable, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 1B at 0.60 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C
at 0.20 ppm; and for combined residues of flonicamid and its
metabolites TFNA and TFNA-AM in or on cattle, fat at 0.03 ppm; cattle,
meat at 0.08 ppm; egg at 0.04 ppm; goat, fat at 0.03 ppm; goat, meat at
0.08 ppm; horse, fat at 0.03 ppm; horse, meat at 0.08 ppm; milk at 0.03
ppm; poultry, fat at 0.03 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.03 ppm; poultry, meat
byproducts at 0.03 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.03 ppm; and sheep, meat at 0.08
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.
    Flonicamid has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and
inhalation routes of exposure. Its metabolites TFNA, TFNA-AM, and TFNG
also demonstrated low toxicity in acute oral toxicity studies.
Flonicamid is non-irritating to the eye and skin and is not a dermal
sensitizer. In the 28-day dermal study no dermal or systemic toxicity
was seen at the limit dose for flonicamid technical.
    The oral studies in rats and dogs indicate the kidney and liver are
the target organs for flonicamid toxicity. Kidney weight increases,
kidney hyaline deposition and liver centrilobular hypertrophy effects
were seen in the rat 28-day oral range-finding study, 90-day oral
study, developmental toxicity study, and reproduction study. These
effects were not observed in the rabbit developmental study. The 90-day
dog study showed kidney tubular vacuolation, as well as increased
adrenal weights, increased reticulocytes and decreased thymus weights.
Increased reticulocyte was noted in both the subchronic and chronic dog
studies.
    There is no evidence that flonicamid results in increased
susceptibility (qualitative or quantitative) in in utero rats or
rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in the
2-generation reproduction study. Developmental effects (increased
incidence of cervical rib) were observed only in the rat at high doses,
and the developmental and reproductive effects (decreased uterus
weights and delayed sexual maturation) that were seen in these studies
occurred only at doses that were also maternally toxic. Further,
although neurotoxic signs (decreased motor activity, tremors, impaired
respiration, and impaired gait) were noted in the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies, they occurred only at high doses and were not
seen in other flonicamid toxicity studies.
    Mutagenicity studies were negative for the parent chemical,
flonicamid, and its metabolites TFNA, TFNA-AM, TFNG, TFNG-AM, and TFNA-
OH. Flonicamid was carcinogenic in CD-1 mice, based on increased
incidences of lung tumors associated with Clara cell activation; the
effects, however, were associated with species and strain sensitivity
and thus not deemed highly relevant to human cancer risk. Nasal cavity
tumors in male Wistar rats were linked to incisor inflammation; data
were not sufficient to make a similar determination in female rats.
Based on these findings and analysis of the cancer and mutagenicity
studies, EPA classified flonicamid as having suggestive evidence of
carcinogenicity but concluded that the carcinogenic potential of
flonicamid is very low and has determined that quantification of human
cancer risk is not appropriate.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by flonicamid 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 at http://
www.regulations.gov in the document Flonicamid: Human Health Risk
Assessment for Proposed Uses on Root Vegetables (Except Sugar beet;
Subgroup 1B), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables (Subgroup 1C), Leafy
Brassica Green Vegetables (Subgroup 5B), Turnip Greens, Hops, and Okra.
The referenced document is available in the docket established by this
action, which is described under ADDRESSES, and is identified as docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0338-0003 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-, intermediate-, 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/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for flonicamid used for

human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the
document Flonicamid: Human Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Uses on
Root Vegetables (Except Sugar beet; Subgroup 1B), Tuberous and Corm
Vegetables (Subgroup 1C), Leafy Brassica Green Vegetables (Subgroup
5B), Turnip Greens, Hops, and Okra at pages 22-23. The referenced
document is available in the docket established by this action, which
is described under ADDRESSES, and is identified as docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0338-0003 in that docket.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to flonicamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing flonicamid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.613. EPA assessed dietary exposures from flonicamid in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. 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. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for flonicamid; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 1994-1996
and 1998 CSFII. As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed all foods for
which there are tolerances were treated and contain tolerance-level
residues. EPA did not rely on any anticipated residues or percent crop
treated (PCT) estimates in the chronic dietary exposure assessment.
    iii. Cancer. As noted in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that
flonicamid has low carcinogenic potential and that, accordingly,
quantitative assessment of cancer risk is not appropriate. Therefore, a
cancer exposure assessment was not conducted.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency lacks
sufficient monitoring data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure
analysis and risk assessment for flonicamid 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
flonicamid. 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.
    The residues of concern in drinking water include flonicamid and
its degradates TFNA, TFNG-AM, TFNG, TFNA-OH, and TFNA-AM. Based on the
Pesticide Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/
EXAMS) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models,
the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of flonicamid and its
degradates for acute exposures are estimated to be 9.8 parts per
billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.00132 ppb for ground water. The
EECs for chronic exposures are estimated to be 1.5 ppb for surface
water and 0.00132 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. As explained in Unit
III.C.1.i., an acute dietary risk assessment was not conducted for
flonicamid. For chronic dietary risk assessment, the water
concentration value of 1.5 ppb was used to assess 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).
    Flonicamid is currently registered for use on landscape
ornamentals, which could include landscape ornamentals in residential
areas. Since applications to landscape ornamentals are limited to
professional pest control operators, residential handler exposures are
not expected and were not assessed. There may be potential for post-
application dermal exposure of adults or children entering areas
previously treated with flonicamid; however, since a dermal endpoint of
concern was not identified in the toxicity studies for flonicamid, a
dermal assessment is unnecessary and was not conducted. Post-
application inhalation exposures are expected to be negligible.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    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 flonicamid and any other
substances and flonicamid does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that flonicamid 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 FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply
an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure
unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of
safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of
safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA safety factor. 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. The pre- and postnatal
toxicity database for flonicamid includes prenatal developmental
toxicity studies in rats and rabbits and a 2-generation reproduction
toxicity study in rats. There is no evidence that flonicamid results in
increased susceptibility (qualitative or quantitative) in in utero rats
or rabbits in the prenatal developmental studies or in young rats in
the 2-generation reproduction study. Developmental effects (increased
incidence of cervical rib) were observed only in the rat at high doses,
and the developmental and reproductive effects (decreased uterus
weights and delayed sexual maturation) seen in these studies occurred
only in the presence of maternal effects (including increased liver
weights, liver and kidney pathological changes, increased relative
kidney weight and increased blood serum LH levels in F1 females).
    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 flonicamid is complete.
    ii. Neurotoxic signs were seen in the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies, but only at the high doses and in the presence
of other effects indicating general overt toxicity (mortality in the
acute neurotoxicity study and decreases in body weight and body weight
gain, along with reduced food consumption in the subchronic
neurotoxicity study). Neurotoxic signs were not observed in other
studies, and systemic toxicity was observed at considerably lower doses
than those that produced neurotoxic effects in the acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies. Further, there were no signs of neurotoxicity
and no indications of increased susceptibility of in utero rats or
rabbits or offspring in the developmental and reproduction studies for
flonicamid. Based on these considerations, EPA has determined that
there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional
UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that flonicamid results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100% crop treated and tolerance-level residues. Conservative ground
and surface water modeling estimates were used. There may be potential
for residential dermal exposure of children entering areas previously
treated with flonicamid; however, since a dermal endpoint of concern
was not identified in the toxicity studies for flonicamid, such
exposures are not expected to pose a health risk to children. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
flonicamid.

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-, intermediate-, 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. None of the toxicology studies available for
flonicamid has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern
occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure; therefore,
flonicamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that exposure to
flonicamid from food and water will utilize 23 % of the cPAD for
children 1 to 2 years old, the population group with the greatest
estimated exposure. Based on the use pattern, chronic residential
exposure to residues of flonicamid 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). Although short-term,
post-application dermal exposures could occur from residential use of
flonicamid on landscape ornamentals, no toxicological effects from
dermal exposure have been identified for flonicamid. Therefore, the
aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water.
    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). Flonicamid is
not registered for use on any sites that would result in intermediate-
term residential exposure. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of
the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of
concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. As discussed in Unit
III.A., EPA regards the carcinogenic potential of flonicamid as very
low and concludes that it poses no greater than a negligible cancer
risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to flonicamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methods (FMC No. P-3561M, a Liquid
Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry/Mass Spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) method
and FMC No. P-3822, a modification of FMC No. P-3561M) are available to
enforce the tolerances for flonicamid and its metabolites, TFNA, TFNA-
AG, and TFNG in plants. For enforcement of tolerances for livestock
commodities, three methods are available: LC/MS/MS method (RCC No.
844743) for residues in eggs and livestock tissues; LC/MS method (RCC
No. 842993) for residues in milk; and LC/MS/MS method (FMC P3580) which
includes an acid hydrolysis step for residues in cattle muscle, kidney,
and liver. The methods 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 established Codex, Canadian, or Mexican
maximum residue levels (MRLs) for flonicamid.

C. Changes to Proposed Tolerances

    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA
determined that the proposed tolerance on ``vegetables, root, except
sugar beet, subgroup 1B'' should be increased from 0.45 ppm to 0.60
ppm. EPA revised the tolerance level based on analysis of the residue
field trial data using the Agency's Tolerance Spreadsheet in accordance
with the Agency's Guidance for Setting Pesticide Tolerances Based on
Field Trial Data Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). EPA also
determined that existing tolerances for residues of flonicamid, TFNA
and TFNA-AM in or on cattle, fat; cattle, meat; egg; goat, fat; goat,
meat; horse, fat; horse, meat; milk; poultry, fat; poultry, meat;
poultry, meat byproducts; sheep, fat; and sheep, meat should be
increased to the following levels: cattle, fat at 0.03 ppm; cattle,
meat at 0.08 ppm; egg at 0.04 ppm; goat, fat at 0.03 ppm; goat, meat at
0.08 ppm; horse, fat at 0.03 ppm; horse, meat at 0.08 ppm; milk at 0.03
ppm; poultry, fat at 0.03 ppm; poultry, meat at 0.03 ppm; poultry, meat
byproducts at 0.03 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.03 ppm; and sheep, meat at 0.08
ppm. EPA revised these levels based on recalculated livestock dietary
burdens for poultry and ruminants, taking into account potential
flonicamid residues under the proposed tolerances.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for combined residues of
flonicamid, [N-(cyanomethyl)-4-(trifluoromethyl)-3-pyridinecarboxamide]
and its metabolites TFNA [4-trifluoromethylnicotinic acid], TFNA-AM [4-
trifluoromethylnicotinamide] TFNG [N-(4-
trifluoromethylnicotinoyl)glycine], in or on Brassica, leafy greens,
subgroup 5B at 16 ppm; hop, dried cones at 7.0 ppm; okra at 0.40 ppm;
radish, tops at 16

ppm; turnip, greens at 16 ppm; vegetable, root, except sugar beet,
subgroup 1B at 0.60 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C
at 0.20 ppm. Revised tolerances are established for combined residues
of flonicamid its metabolites TFNA and TFNA-AM in or on cattle, fat at
0.03 ppm; cattle, meat at 0.08 ppm; egg at 0.04 ppm; goat, fat at 0.03
ppm; goat, meat at 0.08 ppm; horse, fat at 0.03 ppm; horse, meat at
0.08 ppm; milk at 0.03 ppm; poultry, fat at 0.03 ppm; poultry, meat at
0.03 ppm; poultry, meat byproducts at 0.03 ppm; sheep, fat at 0.03 ppm;
and sheep, meat at 0.08 ppm.
    Tolerances currently exist for combined residues of flonicamid and
its metabolites TFNA, TFNA-AM, and TFNG in or on mustard greens at 11
ppm and potato at 0.20 ppm. These tolerances are no longer needed,
since residues on these commodities will be covered by the new
tolerances being established on ``Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B''
at 16 ppm and ``vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C'' at 0.20
ppm. Therefore, EPA is revoking these existing, redundant tolerances.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
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 final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final 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 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 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 final rule. In addition,
this final 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 rule in the Federal
Register. This 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: March 21, 2008.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR part 180 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 180.613 is amended as follows:
0
a. By removing the commodities ``Mustard greens'' and ``Potato'' from
the table in paragraph (a)(1).
0
b. By alphabetically adding commodities to the table in paragraph
(a)(1).
0
c. By revising the table in paragraph (a)(2).

Sec.  180.613  Flonicamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 5B........................           16
                                * * * * *
Hop, dried cones...........................................          7.0
Okra.......................................................         0.40
                                * * * * *
Radish, tops...............................................           16
                                * * * * *
Turnip, greens.............................................           16
                                * * * * *
Vegetable, root, except sugar beet, subgroup 1B............         0.60
Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C..................         0.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle, fat................................................         0.03
Cattle, meat...............................................         0.08
Cattle, meat byproducts....................................         0.08
Egg........................................................         0.04
Goat, fat..................................................         0.03
Goat, meat.................................................         0.08
Goat, meat byproducts......................................         0.08
Horse, fat.................................................         0.03
Horse, meat................................................         0.08
Horse, meat byproducts.....................................         0.08
Milk.......................................................         0.03
Poultry, fat...............................................         0.03
Poultry, meat..............................................         0.03
Poultry, meat byproducts...................................         0.03
Sheep, fat.................................................         0.03
Sheep, meat................................................         0.08
Sheep, meat byproducts.....................................         0.08
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. E8-6668 Filed 4-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S