[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 32 (Friday, February 15, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4340-4345]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02523]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0530; FRL-9985-23]

Trifloxystrobin; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
trifloxystrobin in or on flax seed and amends an existing tolerance for
aspirated grain fractions. Bayer CropScience requested these tolerances
and amendments under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective February 15, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before April 16, 2019, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0530, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_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.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0530 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
April 16, 2019. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0530, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2018 (83 FR 8408) (FRL-
9972-17), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of pesticide petitions (PP
7F8595 and 7F8633) by Bayer CropScience LP2, T.W. Alexander Dr.,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petitions requested that 40 CFR
part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the
fungicide trifloxystrobin in or on flax, seed at 0.4 parts per million
(ppm) (7F8595) and requested an amendment of the existing tolerance in
or on grain, aspirated fractions from 5.0 ppm to 15 ppm (7F8633). That
document referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Bayer
CropScience, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
modified the commodity definitions and tolerance values. The reason for
these changes are explained in Unit IV.D.

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 . . . .''
    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 trifloxystrobin including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with trifloxystobin
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.
    With repeated dosing, the liver is consistently the target organ
for trifloxystrobin. Liver effects characterized by an increase in
liver weights and an increased incidence of hepatocellular hypertrophy
and/or hepatocellular necrosis were seen in rats, mice, and dogs. The
effects of reduced body weights and food consumption were also found in
the majority of the toxicity studies. Intestinal disturbances, as
indicated by diarrhea and vomiting, were seen in dogs and rats at
higher dose levels relative to those which caused liver and body weight
effects. This finding was consistent with those produced by other
members of the strobilurin class.
    In the rabbit developmental toxicity study, an increase in the
incidence of fused sternabrae was seen at a dose (500 mg/kg/day) 10
times higher than the maternal LOAEL (50 mg/kg/day). No developmental
toxicity was seen at the limit dose (1,000 mg/kg) in the rat
developmental toxicity study, but decreased body weight and food
consumption was found in the maternal animals at 100 mg/kg/day or
above. In the rat reproduction study, both parent and offspring showed
decreases in body weight during lactation at similar dose levels (55.3
mg/kg/day). Therefore, there is no evidence of a qualitative or
quantitative increase in sensitivity in the fetuses and pups of the
developmental and reproduction studies, respectively. Trifloxystrobin
was determined not to be carcinogenic in mice or rats following long-
term dietary administration. Mutagenicity testing was positive in
Chinese Hamster V79 cells at cytotoxic dose levels but negative in the
remaining mutagenicity studies.
    Trifloxystrobin was not neurotoxic in the acute neurotoxicity
study, nor in any of the repeated dose studies in the available data.
The requirement for a subchronic neurotoxicity study was waived because
there is no evidence of neurotoxicity in the existing trifloxystrobin
database or that of other strobilurin pesticides, and there are no
neurotoxicity concerns for trifloxystrobin. However, a subchronic
inhalation toxicity study is required for trifloxystrobin at this time.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by trifloxystrobin as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document titled ``Trifloxystrobin. Human
Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed New Use on Flax Seed and
Increase of Established Tolerance on Aspirated Grain Fractions'' on
pages 28-30 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0530.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for trifloxystrobin used
for human risk assessment is shown in Table 1 of this unit.

     Table 1--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Trifloxystrobin for Use in Human Health Risk
                                                   Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/scenario            and uncertainty/     RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety factors       risk assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-50       NOAEL = 250 mg/kg/    Acute RfD = 2.5 mg/  Developmental--Rabbit
 years of age).                     day UFA = 10x.        kg/day.             LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 2.5 mg/kg/     increased fetal skeletal
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 malformation such as fused
                                                                               sternabrae.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (General population  There were no appropriate toxicological effects attributable to a single
 including infants and children).   exposure (dose) observed in oral toxicity studies including maternal effects
                                    in developmental studies in rats and rabbits. Therefore, a dose and endpoint
                                    were not identified for this risk assessment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL= 3.8 mg/kg/day  Chronic RfD = 0.038  Two-Generation Reproduction--Rat
                                    UFA = 10x.            mg/kg/day.          Maternal LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day
                                   UFH = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.038 mg/kg/   based on decreased body weight
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........   day.                 and histopathological lesions in
                                                                               the liver, kidney and spleen.
                                                                              Offspring LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day
                                                                               based on decreased pup body
                                                                               weights during lactation.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL= 3.8 mg/kg/day  LOC for MOE = 100..  Two-Generation Reproduction--Rat
 30 days).                          UFA = 10x.                                Maternal LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        based on decreased body weight
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        and histopathological lesions in
                                                                               the liver, kidney and spleen.
                                                                              Offspring LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day
                                                                               based on decreased pup body
                                                                               weights during lactation.
Inhalation all durations.........  Oral study NOAEL=     LOC for MOE = 1000.  Two-Generation Reproduction--Rat
                                    3.8 mg/kg/day.                            Maternal LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        based on decreased body weight
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        and weight gain, decreased food
                                   UFDB = 10x..........                        consumption, liver, kidney and
                                                                               spleen effects.
                                                                              Offspring LOAEL = 55.3 mg/kg/day
                                                                               based on decreased pup body
                                                                               weights during lactation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  Classification: ``Not likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans'' based on the
                                    absence of significant tumor increases in two adequate rodent
                                    carcinogenicity studies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose. UF = uncertainty factor.
  UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFDB = to account for the absence of data or other
  data deficiency. UFH = potential variation in sensitivity among members of the human population
  (intraspecies).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to trifloxystrobin, EPA considered exposure under the
petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing trifloxystrobin
tolerances in 40 CFR 180.555. EPA assessed dietary exposures from
trifloxystrobin in food as follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    Such effects were identified for trifloxystrobin. In estimating
acute dietary exposure, EPA used food consumption information from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America, (NHANES/WWEIA). As to
residue levels in food, EPA conducted an unrefined acute dietary
assessment assuming tolerance-level residues for all crop commodities,
with DEEM default processing factors. For ruminant and swine liver, and
meat byproducts, a correction factor of 3x was applied to the tolerance
to account for contribution of Metabolite L7a in these commodities (not
applicable to kidney). All other livestock commodities used tolerance-
level residues.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA's NHANES/
WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA conducted a partially refined
chronic (food and drinking water) dietary assessment assuming average
field trial residues for selected crops (subgroup 4-16A and 4-16B;
subgroup 5-16; subgroup 13-07F; subgroups 19A and 19B; subgroups 22A
and 22B; oranges; apples, and rice); all other crop commodities used
tolerance-level residues. Percent crop treated (PCT) data were
incorporated where available. Empirical and DEEM default processing
factors were used. To account for contribution of Metabolite L7a, a 3x
correction factor was applied to ruminant and swine liver, and meat
byproducts (not applicable to kidney). All other livestock commodities
used tolerance-level residues.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that trifloxystrobin does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. Section 408(b)(2)(E)
of FFDCA authorizes EPA to use available data and information on the
anticipated residue levels of pesticide residues in food and the actual
levels of pesticide residues that have been measured in food. If EPA
relies on such information, EPA must require pursuant to FFDCA section
408(f)(1) that data be provided 5 years after the tolerance is
established, modified, or left in effect, demonstrating that the levels
in food are not above the levels anticipated. For the present action,
EPA will issue such data call-ins as are required by FFDCA section
408(b)(2)(E) and authorized under FFDCA section 408(f)(1). Data will be
required to be submitted no later than 5 years from the date of
issuance of these tolerances.
    Section 408(b)(2)(F) of FFDCA states that the Agency may use data
on the actual percent of food treated for assessing chronic dietary
risk only if:
     Condition a: The data used are reliable and provide a
valid basis to show what percentage of the food derived from such crop
is likely to contain the pesticide residue.
     Condition b: The exposure estimate does not underestimate
exposure for any significant subpopulation group.
     Condition c: Data are available on pesticide use and food
consumption in a particular area, the exposure estimate does not
understate exposure for the population in such area. In addition, the
Agency must provide for periodic evaluation of any estimates used. To
provide for the periodic evaluation of the estimate of PCT as required
by FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(F), EPA may

require registrants to submit data on PCT.
    The following average percent crop treated estimates were used in
the chronic dietary risk assessment for the following crops for which
trifloxystrobin is currently registered: Almonds: 5%, apples: 25%,
apricots: 10%, artichokes: 25%, cantaloupes: 5%, carrots: 2.5%, celery:
20%, cherries: 25%, corn: <2.5%, cucumbers: <2.5%, dry beans/peas: <1%,
grapefruit: 30%, grapes: 25%, hazelnuts: 65%, nectarines: 5%, oranges:
5%, peaches: <2.5%, peanuts: 5%, pears: 10%, pecans: 15%, peppers: 5%,
pistachios: 10%, plums/prunes: <2.5%, potatoes: <1%, pumpkins: 5%,
rice: 15%, soybeans: <2.5%, squash: <2.5%, strawberries: 5%, sugar
beets: 5%, sweet corn: <2.5%, tangerines: 5%; tomatoes: <2.5%, walnuts:
<2.5%, watermelons: 5%. 100% CT was assumed for the remaining
commodities.
    In most cases, EPA uses available data from United States
Department of Agriculture/National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA/NASS), proprietary market surveys, and the National Pesticide Use
Database for the chemical/crop combination for the most recent 6-7
years. EPA uses an average PCT for chronic dietary risk analysis. The
average PCT figure for each existing use is derived by combining
available public and private market survey data for that use, averaging
across all observations, and rounding to the nearest 5%, except for
those situations in which the average PCT is less than one. In those
cases, 1% is used as the average PCT and 2.5% is used as the maximum
PCT. EPA uses a maximum PCT for acute dietary risk analysis. The
maximum PCT figure is the highest observed maximum value reported
within the recent 6 years of available public and private market survey
data for the existing use and rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5%.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for trifloxystrobin in drinking water. These simulation
models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/
transport characteristics of trifloxystrobin. Further information
regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure
assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide in Water Calculator (PWC), the estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of trifloxystrobin for acute
exposures are estimated to be 41 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water and 631 ppb for ground water; and for chronic exposures are
estimated to be 28 ppb for surface water and 356 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For the acute dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 631 ppb was used to assess
the contribution to drinking water. For the chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration of value 356 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).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turf and ornamentals. EPA
assessed residential exposure using the following assumptions:
Residential handler exposure and risk estimates from trifloxystrobin
registrations were previously re-assessed in 2014 to reflect updates to
the Agency's 2012 Residential SOPs along with policy changes for body
weight assumptions. Since the 2014 assessment, it has been determined
that all trifloxystrobin product labels with potential residential use
sites require that handlers wear specific clothing (e.g., long sleeve
shirt/long pants) and use personal protective equipment (PPE).
Therefore, EPA has made the assumption that trifloxystrobin products
are not for homeowner use, and has not conducted a quantitative
residential handler assessment at this time. Based upon the residential
uses, adults and children performing physical post-application
activities on turf (e.g., golfing, mowing) or ornamentals (e.g.,
activities in or around gardens or trees) may be exposed via dermal
exposure to trifloxystrobin residues and children 1 to <2 years old may
also be exposed via incidental oral post-application exposure to
trifloxystrobin from treated turf. A dermal assessment was not
conducted because an adverse systemic dermal hazard was not identified
for trifloxystrobin. Therefore, the quantitative exposure/risk
assessment for residential post-application exposures is based on
incidental oral exposures from physical activities on turf (i.e., for
children 1 to <2 years old).
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found trifloxystrobin to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and trifloxystrobin does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
trifloxystrobin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision,
EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different
additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support
the choice of a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no increased
quantitative or qualitative susceptibility to trifloxystrobin in the
developing or young animals as indicated by the results of the
developmental studies in rat and rabbits and the 2-generation
reproduction study in rats.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1x for all routes of exposure other than
inhalation. The FQPA SF of 10x has been retained for

inhalation endpoints only to account for the lack of the subchronic
inhalation toxicity study for trifloxystrobin at this time. This
decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for trifloxystrobin is complete with the
exception of a subchronic inhalation toxicity study.
    ii. There is no indication that trifloxystrobin is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that trifloxystrobin 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. The exposure databases are complete, and the exposure
assessments will not underestimate the potential dietary (food and
drinking water) or non-dietary exposures for infants and children from
the use of trifloxystrobin. The chronic dietary food exposure
assessment was partially refined based on average residues and PCT for
some crops and conservative ground water drinking water modeling
estimates. The dietary drinking water assessment utilizes water
concentration values generated by models and associated modeling
parameters which are designed to provide conservative, health
protective, high-end estimates of water concentrations, and are not
likely to be exceeded. In addition, the residential post-application
assessment is based upon the residential SOPs employing surrogate study
data, as well as the use of a chemical-specific turf transferable
residue study. The Residential SOPs are based upon reasonable ``worst-
case'' assumptions and are not expected to underestimate risk. These
data are reliable and are not expected to underestimate risk to adults
or children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to trifloxystrobin will occupy 3.4% of the aPAD for females 13-49 years
old, the only population group of concern.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
trifloxystrobin from food and water will utilize 58% of the cPAD for
all infants less than 1 year old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
trifloxystrobin is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    Trifloxystrobin is currently registered for uses that could result
in short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that
it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to trifloxystrobin.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 120 for
children 1 to less than 2 years old. Because EPA's level of concern for
trifloxystrobin is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
trifloxystrobin is not registered for any use patterns that would
result in intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term
risk is assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus
chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term
residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been
assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as
protective as the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no
further assessment of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA
relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating
intermediate-term risk for trifloxystrobin.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, trifloxystrobin is not expected to pose a 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 trifloxystrobin residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography method with
nitrogen phosphorus detection (GC/NPD)) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

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

C. Response to Comments

    Two comments were received to the Notice of Filing. One appeared to
be related to the Department of Energy and stated in part that ``any
environmentalist policy that would drive up the cost of energy, food,
or other essential needs in the name of protecting nature must be
rejected.'' This comment is not relevant to this action. A second
comment stated in part ``Do not allow this toxic pesticide to be used
anywhere in the world. Nobody needs this toxic chemical unleashed.''
    Although the Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that
pesticides

should be banned on agricultural crops, the existing legal framework
provided by section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) authorizes EPA to establish tolerances when it determines that
the tolerance is safe. Upon consideration of the validity,
completeness, and reliability of the available data as well as other
factors the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, EPA has determined that
these trifloxystrobin tolerances are safe. The commenter has provided
no information supporting a contrary conclusion.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency is establishing the tolerance value on flax seed as
requested but with the addition of a significant figure based on
current practice and establishing a tolerance on grain, aspirated
fractions using the commodity definition that is consistent with common
commodity vocabulary currently used by the Agency. Also, based upon the
relevant field trial and processing studies, EPA is modifying the
tolerance in/on aspirated grain fractions to 10 ppm, not 15 ppm as
proposed by the registrant. This is due to differences in how the
Agency and the registrant each calculated the processed commodity
residues for aspirated grain fractions.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of
trifloxystrobin, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on
flax, seed at 0.40 ppm, and the existing tolerance for grain, aspirated
fractions is amended from 5.0 ppm to 10 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance and amends a tolerance under
FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this
action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it
considered a regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled
``Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339,
February 3, 2017). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: December 19, 2019.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.555, add alphabetically the entry ``Flax, seed'' and
revise the entry for ``Grain, aspirated fractions'' in the table in
paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.555  Trifloxystrobin; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Parts per
                        Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Flax, seed..............................................            0.40

                                * * * * *
Grain, aspirated grain fractions........................              10

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-02523 Filed 2-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25844-25848]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11545]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85954; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Allow an Odd Lot-Sized
Order To Be Eligible for the Midpoint Extended Life Order

May 29, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 20, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC

(``Nasdaq'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to allow an odd lot-sized Order to be
eligible for the Midpoint Extended Life Order. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to allow an odd lot \3\-sized Order \4\
to be eligible for the Midpoint Extended Life Order.\5\ The Midpoint
Extended Life Order is an Order Type with a Non-Display Order Attribute
that is priced at the midpoint between the NBBO and that will not be
eligible to execute until the Holding Period of one half of a second
has passed after acceptance of the Order by the System. Once a Midpoint
Extended Life Order becomes eligible to execute, the Order may only
execute against other eligible Midpoint Extended Life Orders. Nasdaq
adopted the Midpoint Extended Life Order to address the needs of market
participants that focus their trading on receiving midpoint execution
where time to execution is less important when working to meet their
long term investment needs. Since its implementation in 2018,\6\ the
Midpoint Extended Life Order Type has achieved its design expectations.
One metric that Nasdaq measures is the change in the NBBO after a
Midpoint Extended Life Order executes. In the month of April 2019, the
NBBO price was the same as it was prior to a Midpoint Extended Life
Order execution approximately 88-90 percent of the time one second
later. This shows that the executions are generally not impacting the
overall market price. Furthermore, Nasdaq believes the sample size is
robust as there are approximately 12.5 million shares transacted as
Midpoint Extended Life Orders a day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The terms ``normal unit of trading'' or ``round lot'' means
[sic] the size generally employed by traders when trading a
particular security, which is 100 shares in most instances. The term
``odd lot'' means a size of less than one normal unit of trading.
See Rule 4703(b).
    \4\ The term ``Order'' means an instruction to trade a specified
number of shares in a specified System Security submitted to the
Nasdaq Market Center by a Participant. An ``Order Type'' is a
standardized set of instructions associated with an Order that
define how it will behave with respect to pricing, execution, and/or
posting to the Nasdaq Book when submitted to Nasdaq. An ``Order
Attribute'' is a further set of variable instructions that may be
associated with an Order to further define how it will behave with
respect to pricing, execution, and/or posting to the Nasdaq Book
when submitted to Nasdaq. The available Order Types and Order
Attributes, and the Order Attributes that may be associated with
particular Order Types, are described in Rules 4702 and 4703. One or
more Order Attributes may be assigned to a single Order; provided,
however, that if the use of multiple Order Attributes would provide
contradictory instructions to an Order, the System will reject the
Order or remove non-conforming Order Attributes. See Rule 4701(e).
    \5\ See Rule 4702(b)(14).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82825 (March 7,
2018), 83 FR 10937 (March 13, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2017-074).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, a Midpoint Extended Life Order must be entered with a
size of at least one round lot and any shares of a Midpoint Extended
Life Order remaining after an execution that are less than a round lot
will be cancelled by the System. Over the last several years, the
number of high priced securities has increased (see Figure 1) and the
number of stock splits have decreased (see Figure 2).
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04JN19.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN04JN19.002

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C
    There is a notably large percentage of odd lot trades in relatively
high priced securities. For example, in October 2018, such transactions
accounted for approximately 5 percent of total consolidated volume
during the month, and accounted for 30 percent of all transactions
occurring in the month across all securities. In contrast, for stocks
with a price of $500 or more during the same timeframe the Exchange
observed that 39 percent of total consolidated volume was due to odd
lot trades and 85 percent of all transactions occurring in the month
were odd lots. Thus, a significant number of higher priced securities
have transactions occurring in odd lot transactions. The Exchange
believes that allowing entry of odd lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life
Orders will eliminate a limitation of the Order and give users more
control over their Orders.
    In the first quarter of 2019 for example, the Exchange executed
approximately 2,000,000 trades in one issuer whose stock has a price
greater than $1,000, with an average trade size of approximately 34
shares. Using this stock's closing price of approximately $1,700 for
March 2019, the notional value of a 34 share trade would be $56,000.
Most would agree that $56,000 in value does not represent a small
trade. For this stock to execute as a Midpoint Extended Life Order, the
average trade size would need to triple to achieve the current minimum
Order size of 100 shares or one round lot for this particular stock,
and as such has only traded 20 times as a Midpoint Extended Life Order
in the first quarter of 2019. Nasdaq believes that eliminating the
minimum Order size from the Midpoint Extended Life Order will provide
like-minded investors the opportunity to transact in high-priced stocks
such as the example above in an ecosystem where the quote remains
stable approximately 88--90 percent of time one second post-
execution,\7\ notably higher than off-exchange venues where the quote
remains stable 75-80 percent of time one second post-execution based on
Nasdaq's internal assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As of April 2019.

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

    As of March 12, 2019, there are nearly 550 securities that trade on
the Exchange that are priced greater than $100, 76 securities greater
than $250, 24 securities greater than $500, and 10 securities over
$1,000. Odd lot Orders account for 46 percent of trades for stocks
above $100, and for securities over $500 this number rises to over 85
percent. Odd lot transactions now represent a large percentage of
trades, yet are ineligible for the Midpoint Extended Life Order, even
for transactions that would be identified by many as institutional
sized and some even being classified as a block trade.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., https://otctransparency.finra.org/otctransparency/AtsBlocks (providing Block Data of $100,000
transactions and greater).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nasdaq recognizes that not all participants may desire to execute
odd lots. Such participants may elect to use the Minimum Quantity Order
Attribute to avoid such transactions, much like they would do for
executing on the Nasdaq Book. Nasdaq notes that other exchanges and
many Alternative Trading Systems (ATSs) allow for odd lots and
customers there use minimum quantity attributes to manage the execution
sizes for their orders. The Exchange notes that the Minimum Quantity
Order Attribute is limited to Orders of at least one round lot upon
entry.\9\ Consequently, members entering odd lot-sized Midpoint
Extended Life Orders would not be able to limit their interaction with
other odd lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Orders based on size, which
the Exchange believes is appropriate because members understand the
limitation and have made the decision to accept such possible
interaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Rule 4703(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In proposing the Midpoint Extended Life Order round lot
requirement, the Exchange noted that round lots would promote size and
provide members with the most efficient processing of Midpoint Extended
Life Orders.\10\ This was based on the Exchange's observation at the
time that many participants that would likely avail themselves of
Midpoint Extended Life Orders tend to route their Orders in round lot
sizes, and that many strategies are modeled based on receipt of a round
lot execution. Nasdaq has since observed that the members that use
Midpoint Extended Life Orders are now modeling strategies based on
individual securities or grouping of securities based on attributes
such as price, average daily volume, and volatility. Consequently,
round lot size is no longer a wide-spread need among users of Midpoint
Extended Life Orders. Notwithstanding, as noted above a member may
elect to associate a Minimum Quantity Order Attribute with its round
lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Order to avoid interaction with odd
lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Orders, which because of their size
may not be attractive as a contra-side Order to some market
participants.\11\ Last, the Exchange notes that most other Order Types
under Rule 4702 allow entry of odd lot-sized Orders. Permitting entry
of odd lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Orders will increase liquidity
in the Order Type and improve the chances that a Midpoint Extended Life
Order will receive an execution for higher priced stocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 6.
    \11\ For example, an odd lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Order
takes on less risk as it rests in the Holding Period for any given
security. As noted above, this may not be the case when comparing an
odd lot-size Midpoint Extended Life Order in a high priced security
and a Midpoint Extended Life Order in a low priced security of a
round lot size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ 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 allowing for more widespread use of Midpoint Extended Life
Orders, particularly in high priced securities. Nasdaq adopted the
Midpoint Extended Life Order to address the needs of market
participants that focus their trading on receiving midpoint execution
where time to execution is less important when working to meet their
long term investment needs. As described above, the Exchange believes
the proposed change will benefit market participants by expanding the
available sizes of orders available which in turn will provide greater
opportunities for interaction in higher priced securities in Midpoint
Extended Life Orders. The Exchange notes that members with round lot-
sized Midpoint Extended Life Orders that are seeking to interact with
only other round lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Orders may do so by
applying the Minimum Quantity Order Attribute. Members that have odd
lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Orders are unable to similarly limit
the size of Order [sic] with which they interact, since the Minimum
Quantity Order Attribute is limited to Orders with a size of at least
one round lot. The Exchange believes that this is consistent with the
Act because it is the same limitation that all other Orders have with
respect to the use of Minimum Quantity Order Attribute and a member may
merely enter a round lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Order with a
Minimum Quantity Order Attribute if it does not want to interact with
odd lot-sized Midpoint Extended Life Orders. Moreover, the Exchange
believes the limitation is consistent with the Act because members
understand the limitation and have made the decision to accept possible
interaction with Orders of any size. For these reasons, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change is consistent with the purposes of
the Order Type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Midpoint Extended Life
Order was adopted as a pro-competitive measure to improve participation
on the Exchange by allowing certain market participants that may
currently be underserved on regulated exchanges to compete based on
elements other than speed. The proposed change is a natural extension
of the original proposal because it broadens interaction opportunities
in Midpoint Extended Life Orders, particularly in higher priced stocks,
while also ensuring that market participants use the Order Type
consistent with its original purposes. In sum, the proposed change will
not burden competition but rather may promote competition for liquidity
in Midpoint Extended Life Orders by expanding the pool of market
participants that may seek to enter such Orders. These market
participants may have otherwise found the cost of a round lot Order in
the securities in which they desire to trade as Midpoint Extended Life
Orders too high. The proposed change will not place a burden on
competition among market venues, as any market may adopt an order type
that operates like the Midpoint Extended Life Order, including allowing
for the execution of odd lot-sized orders, as proposed herein.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be 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-NASDAQ-2019-044 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-044. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-044, and should be submitted
on or before June 25, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-11545 Filed 6-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21232-21233]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08876]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 184-246]

El Dorado Irrigation District; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Application for Temporary Variance of
Minimum Flow Requirements.
    b. Project No.: 184-246.
    c. Date Filed: April 9, 2015.
    d. Applicant: El Dorado Irrigation District (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: El Dorado Project.
    f. Location: South Fork American River and its tributaries in El
Dorado, Alpine, and Amador counties, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Brian Deason, Hydroelectric Compliance
Analyst,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: John Aedo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by
the Commission (April 28, 2015). The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests,
comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-
184-246) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or
recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a modification of
its previous March 25, 2015 request for temporary flow variance, which
is currently pending before the Commission. Specifically, the licensee
requests an expanded temporary flow variance at the South Fork American
River below Kyburz location, such that flows are reduced: from required
60 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 45 cfs from May 1-15; from the
required 60 cfs to 30 cfs from May 16-31; from the required 60 cfs to
18 cfs in June; from the required 40 cfs to 15 cfs in July; and from
the required 18 cfs to 15 cfs in August.
    The licensee states that the revised request is in response to
worsening drought conditions in the project area, including record low
snowpack and accelerated spring runoff that has occurred this year. The
licensee also states that it maintains its previous request for
temporary flow variances in Caples Creek, Echo Creek, Silver Fork
American River and Pyramid Creek.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://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, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the variance. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of
any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

     Dated: April 13, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08876 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 210 (Wednesday, November 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 60629]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-39-001.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C. submits tariff filing
per 154.205(b): Destin Amended Housekeeping Filing to be effective 11/
13/2021.
    Filed Date: 10/22/21.
    Accession Number: 20211022-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/3/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-85-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Volume No. 2--Vitol Inc.
SP365319 to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 10/26/21.
    Accession Number: 20211026-5070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-86-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Sundance--
Duke Energy Progress--2nd Extension to be effective 11/26/2021.
    Filed Date: 10/26/21.
    Accession Number: 20211026-5073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP22-87-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--ConEd 911792
to be effective 11/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 10/26/21.
    Accession Number: 20211026-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/21.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-40-001.
    Applicants: Double E Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Double E Pipeline Tariff
Implementation & Compliance Filing Amendment (RP22-40-) to be effective
11/15/2021.
    Filed Date: 10/26/21.
    Accession Number: 20211026-5135.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/8/21.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at:http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 27, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23956 Filed 11-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 40722]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17249]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-3917-000]

Mojave Solar LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Mojave Solar LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 21, 2011.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17249 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 61116-61117]
[DOCID:fr23no09-40]

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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61020]

Joint Order To Exclude Indexes Composed of Certain Index Options
From the Definition of Narrow-Based Security Index Pursuant to Section
1a(25)(B)(vi) of the Commodity Exchange Act and Section 3(a)(55)(C)(vi)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and
Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Joint order.

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

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (``CFTC'') and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'') (collectively,
``Commissions'') by joint order under the Commodity Exchange Act
(``CEA'') and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')
are excluding certain security indexes from the definition of ``narrow-
based security index.'' Specifically, the Commissions are excluding
from the definition of the term ``narrow-based security index'' certain
volatility indexes composed of series of index options on broad-based
security indexes.

DATES: Effective Date: November 17, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    CFTC: Thomas M. Leahy, Jr., Branch Chief, Market and Product Review
Section, Division of Market Oversight, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or
Julian E. Hammar, Assistant General Counsel, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20581.
    SEC: Richard R. Holley III, Senior Special Counsel, Division of
Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Futures contracts on single securities and on narrow-based security
indexes (collectively, ``security futures'') are jointly regulated by
the CFTC and the SEC.\1\ To distinguish between security futures on
narrow-based security indexes, which are jointly regulated by the
Commissions, and futures contracts on broad-based security indexes,
which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CFTC, the CEA and the
Exchange Act each includes an objective definition of the term
``narrow-based security index.'' A futures contract on an index that
meets the definition of a narrow-based security index is a security
future. A futures contract on an index that does not meet the
definition of a narrow-based security index is a futures contract on a
broad-based security index.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Section 1a(31) of the CEA and Section 3(a)(55)(A) of the
Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1a(31) and 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(A).
    \2\ See 17 CFR 41.1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 1a(25)(A) of the CEA \3\ and Section 3(a)(55)(B) of the
Exchange Act \4\ provide that an index is a ``narrow-based security
index'' if, among other things, it meets one of the following four
criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(25)(A).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) The index has nine or fewer component securities;
    (ii) any component security of the index comprises more than 30
percent of the index's weighting;
    (iii) the five highest weighted component securities of the index
in the aggregate comprise more than 60 percent of the index's
weighting; or
    (iv) the lowest weighted component securities comprising, in the
aggregate, 25 percent of the index's weighting have an aggregate dollar
value of average daily trading volume of less than $50,000,000 (or in
the case of an index with 15 or more component securities,
$30,000,000), except that if there are two or more securities with
equal weighting that could be included in the calculation of the lowest
weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25 percent
of the index's weighting, such securities shall be ranked from lowest
to highest dollar value of average daily trading volume and shall be
included in the calculation based on their ranking starting with the
lowest ranked security.
    The first three criteria evaluate the composition and weighting of
the securities in the index. The fourth criterion evaluates the
liquidity of an index's component securities.
    Section 1a(25)(B)(vi) of the CEA \5\ and Section 3(a)(55)(C)(vi) of
the Exchange Act \6\ provide that, notwithstanding the above criteria,
an index is not a narrow-based security index if a contract of sale for
future delivery on the index is traded on or subject to the rules of a
board of trade and meets such requirements as are jointly established
by rule, regulation, or order by the Commissions. Pursuant to that
authority, the Commissions may jointly exclude an index from the
definition of the term ``narrow-based security index.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(25)(B)(vi).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(C)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using this authority, on March 25, 2004, the Commissions issued a
joint order excluding volatility indexes that satisfy certain
conditions from the definition of ``narrow-based security index''.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 49469 (March 25,
2004), 69 FR 16900 (March 31, 2004) (``2004 Joint Order'').
Following the issuance of the 2004 Joint Order, the CBOE Futures
Exchange, LLC listed for trading futures contacts on the CBOE
Volatility Index (``VIX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Discussion

    The statutory definition of the term ``narrow-based security
index'' is designed to distinguish among indexes composed of individual
stocks. As a result, certain aspects of that definition are designed to
take into account the trading patterns of individual stocks rather than
those of other types of exchange-traded securities, such as security
index options. However, the Commissions believe that the definition is
not limited to indexes on individual stocks. In fact, Section
1a(25)(B)(vi) of the CEA \8\ and Section 3(a)(55)(C)(vi) of the
Exchange Act \9\ give the Commissions joint authority to make
determinations with respect to security indexes that do not meet the
specific statutory criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 7 U.S.C. 1a(25)(B)(vi).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(55)(C)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commissions believed, when issuing the 2004 Joint Order
excluding certain volatility indexes from the definition of ``narrow-
based security index,'' that certain volatility indexes were
appropriately classified as broad-based because they measure the
magnitude of changes in the level of an underlying index that is a
broad-based security index. Further, the Commissions noted that they
believed that futures contracts on volatility indexes that satisfied
the conditions set forth in the 2004 Joint Order should not be readily
susceptible to manipulation. The Commisions believed that those
conditions reduce the ability to manipulate the price of the futures
contracts through manipulation of the options comprising the volatility
index.
    Eurex \10\ has requested that the Commissions exclude the VDAX-
NEW[supreg] volatility index from the definition of ``narrow-based
security index.'' \11\ According to Eurex, this volatility index

meets all the conditions set forth in the 2004 Joint Order, except the
sixth condition, which requires that ``[o]ptions on the Underlying
Broad-Based Security Index * * * [be] listed and traded on a national
securities exchange registered under section 6(a) of the Exchange
Act.'' \12\ The Commissions note that a volatility index based on index
options traded on a foreign exchange, such as the VDAX-NEW[supreg],
would be unable to satisfy this condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Eurex Deutschland is operated by Eurex Frankfurt AG
(hereinafter ``Eurex Deutschland'' and ``Eurex Frankfurt AG''
together are referred to as ``Eurex'').
    \11\ See Letter from Paul M. Architzel, Alston & Bird, LLP, to
Nancy Morris, Secretary, SEC, and Eileen Donovan, Acting Secretary,
CFTC, dated December 18, 2006.
    \12\ See 2004 Joint Order, supra note 7, 69 FR at 16901.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2004 Joint Order the Commissions stated, with respect to the
sixth condition, that:

    Given the novelty of volatility indexes, the Commissions believe
at this time that it is appropriate to limit the component
securities to those index options that are listed for trading on a
national securities exchange where the Commissions know pricing
information is current, accurate and publicly available.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.

    In response to Eurex's request, the Commissions believe that
certain volatility indexes should be excluded from the definition of
``narrow-based security index'' if the index options used to calculate
the magnitude of change in the level of the underlying broad-based
security index are listed for trading on an exchange and pricing
information for the underlying broad-based security index, and options
on such index, is computed and disseminated in real-time though major
market data vendors. For purposes of this Order, the Commissions would
consider such pricing information to be current, accurate, and publicly
available.
    The Commissions believe that, when pricing information for the
index underlying a volatility index and for the index options that
compose the volatility index is current, accurate, and publicly
available, it would minimize the ability to manipulate the index
options used to calculate the volatility index. As a result, futures
contracts on such a volatility index would not be readily susceptible
to manipulation.
    Therefore, the Commissions believe that an alternative to the sixth
condition in the 2004 Joint Order, which requires that the component
securities of a volatility index (i.e., options on the underlying
broad-based index) be listed for trading on a national securities
exchange registered pursuant to Exchange Act Section 6(a), would be
appropriate in certain circumstances. The Commissions believe that it
is appropriate to permit the component securities of a volatility index
to be listed for trading on any exchange, provided that pricing
information for the underlying broad-based security index, and the
options on such index that compose the volatility index, is current,
accurate, and publicly available. Specifically, the new sixth condition
would require such pricing information to be computed and disseminated
in real-time through major market data vendors.
    In addition to the alternative sixth condition discussed above, a
volatility index would have to satisfy the other conditions in the 2004
Joint Order, which are set forth below.\14\ The Commissions also
reaffirm the rationale for those conditions stated in the 2004 Joint
Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Commissions note that nothing in this joint order
should be construed as repealing or otherwise revoking the 2004
Joint Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly,
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 1a(25)(B)(vi) of the CEA and
Section 3(a)(55)(C)(vi) of the Exchange Act, that an index is not a
narrow-based security index and is therefore a broad-based security
index, if:
    (1) The index measures the magnitude of changes in the level of an
underlying broad-based security index that is not a narrow-based
security index as that term is defined in Section 1a(25) of the CEA and
Section 3(a)(55) of the Exchange Act over a defined period of time,
which magnitude is calculated using the prices of options on the
underlying broad-based security index and represents (a) an annualized
standard deviation of percent changes in the level of the underlying
broad-based security index, (b) an annualized variance of percent
changes in the level of the underlying broad-based security index, or
(c) on a non-annualized basis, either the standard deviation or the
variance of percent changes in the level of the underlying broad-based
security index;
    (2) The volatility index has more than nine component securities,
all of which are options on the underlying broad-based security index;
    (3) No component security of the volatility index comprises more
than 30% of the volatility index's weighting;
    (4) The five highest weighted component securities of the
volatility index in the aggregate do not comprise more than 60% of the
volatility index's weighting;
    (5) The average daily trading volume of the lowest weighted
component securities in the underlying broad-based security index upon
which the volatility index is calculated (those comprising, in the
aggregate, 25% of the underlying broad-based security index's
weighting) has a dollar value of more than $50,000,000 (or $30,000,000
in the case of an underlying broad-based security index with 15 or more
component securities), except if there are two or more securities with
equal weighting that could be included in the calculation of the lowest
weighted component securities comprising, in the aggregate, 25% of the
underlying broad-based security index's weighting, such securities
shall be ranked from lowest to highest dollar value of average daily
trading volume and shall be included in the calculation based on their
ranking starting with the lowest ranked security;
    (6) The index options used to calculate the magnitude of change in
the level of the underlying broad-based security index are listed for
trading on an exchange and pricing information for the underlying
broad-based security index, and options on such index, is computed and
disseminated in real-time through major market data vendors; and
    (7) The aggregate average daily trading volume in options on the
underlying broad-based security index is at least 10,000 contracts
calculated as of the preceding 6 full calendar months.

    By the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    Dated: November 17, 2009.
David A. Stawick,
Secretary.

    By the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Dated: November 17, 2009.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28101 Filed 11-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 71812]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29259]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4085-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

New York; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of New York (FEMA-4085-DR), dated October 30, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: November 8, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective November 8, 2012.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-29259 Filed 12-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 15 (Wednesday, January 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 8418]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AC17-40-000]

Black Marlin Pipeline Company; Notice of Petition for Waiver

    Take notice that on January 17, 2017, Black Marlin Pipeline Company
filed a petition for waiver of CPA Certification Statement for its FERC
Form 2-A submittals encompassing the report years 2016 and 2017, as
more fully explained in the petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on February 7, 2017.

    Dated: January 18, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-01679 Filed 1-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


CAEP/ 6 WP/ 34 NOx Production Cut off Considerations Presented by ICCAIA Is There a Need for a CAEP/ 4 NOx Production Cut off?

° Historically, the purpose of a production cut off has been to prevent industry from continuing to manufacture products not in compliance with recent standards ° Industry, however, as demonstrated during the adoption of the CAEP/ 4 NOx standard, has responded to reasonable standards and market forces by incorporating the best available technology into their products, even without an accompanying production cut off   Today, all but one in production engine has met the CAEP/ 4 NOx standard long before it took effect after 31 December 2003 ° Technology has been identified to make this engine compliant   The overwhelming compliance rate suggests that a production cut off is not required Reasonable standards and market forces are the primary drivers to new technology development and incorporation, not production cut offs! Industry is Proactive in Meeting Reasonable Standards Long Before Implementation Dates ENGINE STATUS IN MEETING CAEP/ 4 STANDARD ( 1)

1998 In Production PS 90A Unknown JT 8D No longer in production PW2040 TL1   compliant PW4090 Out of production ( replaced with new engine family, see below)

PW4164, 68 TL2   compliant ( Talon II)

RB211 524 series TL2   compliant ( Phase 5)

RB211 535 series TL2   compliant ( Phase 5)

New Types ( 2)

PW4074D ( 3) Compliant PW4077D, 84D, 90 ( 3 Technology identified PWC Growth Engines Compliant ( 1) TL1 and TL2 are consistent with CAEP/ 6 WP/ 19.

( 2) Engines programs nearing completion but not certified in 1998.

( 3) PW4074D, 4077D, 4084D, and 4090 are one engine family with common bill of material ( B. O. M.). and is not the same as PW4090 that is listed under the " 1998 In Production" heading.

Status of Engines Not Meeting CAEP/ 4 NOx Standard in 1998 Recommendations ° ICCAIA recommends no CAEP/ 4 NOx Production Cut off at CAEP/ 6 ° By taking this action, CAEP can confirm the strength of market forces & reasonable standards as a driver for industry to continue to achieve regulatory compliance   A reasonable CAEP/ 6 NOx standard will reinforce market pressure on manufacturers to incorporate best available technology into their products that meet and exceed CAEP/ 6, not CAEP/ 4   Expands the scope of ICAO policies to achieve environmental objectives   Minimal environmental risk ( Paris SG FESG Interim Analysis Report & CAEP/ 6 WP18 and IP13),

potentially high benefits