[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 116 (Thursday, June 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39183-39184]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14231]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0179]

Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3);
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a guidance for industry entitled ``Prior Notice of
Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition 3): Guidance for
Industry.'' The guidance provides updated information pertaining to
prior notice of imported food under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA) on January 4, 2011. The guidance is intended
to help the food industry and others comply with prior notice
requirements.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on FDA guidances at
any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2011-N-0179 for ``Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and
Answers (Edition 3): Guidance for Industry.'' Received comments will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Office of Food and Feed Operations, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD
20993. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in
processing your request. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angel M. Suarez, Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Food and Feed Operations, Division of Food Defense
Targeting, Food and Drug Administration, Element Bldg., HFC-180, 12420
Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857-20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition
3): Guidance for Industry.'' We are issuing this guidance consistent
with our good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The
guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does
not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or on
the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
    Since publication of edition two of the guidance, FDA has issued a
final rule requiring the submission to FDA of prior notice of food,
including animal feed, imported or offered for import into the United
States (November 7, 2008, 73 FR 66294) and, in accordance with section
304 of FSMA, a final rule requiring the name of any country to which an
article has been refused entry be reported in prior notices (May 30,
2013, 78 FR 32359). FDA is issuing a third edition of its prior notice
guidance to address questions received since publication of the second
edition, clarify previous responses, update previous responses as
appropriate to reflect the 2008 final rule, and include information
about the new prior notice information requirement created by FSMA.
    FDA issued the first and second editions of this guidance on
December 16, 2003, and May 3, 2004, respectively. Both editions were
issued as Level 1 guidance documents under 21 CFR 10.115. Consistent
with FDA's good guidance practices regulations (21 CFR 10.115(g)(2)),
the Agency accepted comments, but implemented the documents immediately
because it determined that prior public participation was not feasible
or appropriate.
    In the Federal Register of March 31, 2014 (79 FR 17947), we made
available a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Draft Guidance for
Industry: Prior Notice of Imported Food Questions and Answers (Edition
3)'' and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by
May 30, 2014, for us to consider before beginning work on the final
version of the guidance. We carefully considered all comments received
when preparing the final guidance. No substantive changes were made in
finalizing the guidance. The guidance announced in this notice
finalizes the draft guidance dated March 2014.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA Web site listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: June 10, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-14231 Filed 6-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 37)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8528-8547]
[DOCID:fr25fe10-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

49 CFR Part 40

[Docket DOT-OST-2008-0088]
RIN OST 2105-AD84

Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is making technical
amendments to its drug and alcohol testing procedures to authorize
employers to begin using the updated U.S. DOT Alcohol Testing Form
(ATF) and the Management Information System (MIS) Data Collection Form.
The Department updated the information collection notice on the forms
to conform to requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

DATES: The rule is effective February 25, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For program issues, Bohdan Baczara,
Office of Drug and Alcohol Policy and Compliance, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590;<PHONE_NUMBER> (voice), (202) 366-
3897 (fax), or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(e-mail).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
104-13, (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Department submitted a request to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the extension of the
currently approved Procedures for the Transportation Drug and Alcohol
Testing Program. OMB approved the submission which included a revised
U.S. DOT Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) and the Management Information
System (MIS) Data Collection Form.
    As part of the approval process, the Department asked for public
comment on ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information being collected on the Alcohol Testing Form (ATF) and
Management Information System (MIS) form Federal Register [73 FR 14300]
and [73 FR 33140]. There was one response, which contained several
comments. As a result of the comments and other input from OMB and DOT
agencies, both forms were updated. Specifically, the ATF and MIS were
updated to include an updated Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement,
the current address of the Department, new DOT form numbers. We
provided additional instructions on the reverse side of Page 3 of the
ATF that tamper evident tape must not obscure the printed information.
Also, the legends in the test result boxes on the front of the ATF were
adjusted and printed in a smaller font so they don't obscure test
results printed directly on the ATF. Other than these changes, the
content and format of ATF from the previous versions remain the same.
    The Department recognizes that employers and alcohol testing
technicians may currently have a large supply of old ATFs. To avoid
unnecessarily wasting these forms, the Department will permit the use
of the old ATF until supplies are exhausted, but the old ATF must not
be used beyond August 1, 2010. Employers are authorized to begin using
the updated ATF immediately.
    In 2006, the Department published a Federal Register notice [71 FR
49383] to update the MIS form and its accompanying instructions to
change the name the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
This change reflects a February 2005 reorganization and renaming of
that DOT agency. Since the change did not appear in the Federal
Register notice, we are publishing the form with its accompanying
instructions sheet again.
    The MIS form is a single-page form, and the information reported on
the MIS data form can be submitted electronically via the Internet at
http://damis.dot.gov. As a result, it is less likely any employer would
have a large number of MIS forms. Thus, employers required to report
MIS data must begin using the revised MIS form in 2011 to report
calendar year 2010 MIS data.
    Both revised forms can be found on our Web site at http://
www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/documents.html.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

    The statutory authority for this rule derives from the Omnibus
Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 (49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322,
5331, 20140, 31306, and 45101 et seq.) and the Department of
Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 322).
    This rule is a non-significant rule both for purposes of Executive
Order 12886 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. The Department certifies that it will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities,
for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Department makes
these statements on the basis that, as a series of technical amendments
that correct or clarify existing regulatory provisions, this rule will
not impose any significant costs on anyone. The costs of the underlying
Part 40 final rule were analyzed in connection with its issuance in
December 2000. Therefore, it has not been necessary for the Department
to conduct a regulatory evaluation or Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
for this final rule. The forms comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
It has no Federalism impacts that would warrant a Federalism
assessment. The amendments made in this rule are technical and
corrective, to an existing rule that went through an extensive public
notice and comment process.
    The amendments are purely technical, do not make significant
changes to Part 40, and we would not anticipate the receipt of
meaningful comments on them. Consequently, the Department has
determined, for purposes of section 553 of the Administrative Procedure
Act, that prior notice and comment are unnecessary, impracticable, or
contrary to the public interest. For the same reasons, and because it
will be very useful to program participants to be authorized to use the
revised forms immediately, we have determined, under section 553, that
there is good cause to make the rule effective immediately upon
publication.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 40

    Administrative practice and procedures, Alcohol abuse, Alcohol
testing, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Laboratories, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    Issued this 9th day of February 2010, at Washington, DC.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary of Transportation.

0
For reasons discussed in the preamble, the Department of Transportation
is amending 49 CFR part 40, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 40--PROCEDURES FOR TRANSPORTATION WORKPLACE DRUG AND ALCOHOL
TESTING PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for 49 CFR part 40 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 102, 301, 322, 5331, 20140, 31306, and
45101 et seq.

Sec.  40.225  [Amended]

0
2. Section 40.225 (a) is amended by removing the words, ``February 1,
2002''.

0
3. Appendix G to Part 40--Alcohol Testing Form is revised to read as
follows:

Appendix G to Part 40--Alcohol Testing Form

    The following form is the alcohol testing form required for use
in the DOT alcohol testing program beginning August 1, 2010.
Employers are authorized to use the form effective February 25,
2010.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.005

0
4. Appendix H to Part 40--DOT Drug and Alcohol Testing Management
Information System (MIS) Data Collection Form is revised to read as
follows:

Appendix H to Part 40--DOT Drug and Alcohol Testing Management
Information System (MIS) Data Collection Form

    The following form is the MIS Data Collection form required for
use beginning in 2011 to report calendar year 2010 MIS data.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.012

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.013

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR25FE10.017

[FR Doc. 2010-3731 Filed 2-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C


MEMORANDUM

TO:		Public Record for the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule
		EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0274 (www.regulations.gov)

FROM:		Carey A. Johnston, P.E.
            USEPA/OECA/OC
            ph:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
DATE:		14 May 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT:	Data Elements Supporting the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey [DCN 0113]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview

      EPA is seeking comment on including into Appendix A of the NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule two data elements that support the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey. EPA conducts this survey under authority of Sections 205(a) and 516 of the Clean Water Act. These changes would reduce burden on states by eliminating most of the need for EPA to collect these two data elements from states as part of its quadrennial survey.
      These two POTW data elements are: (1) POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Level Description [The highest level of treatment (e.g., primary equivalent to secondary, secondary, advanced, other) that the POTW provides at each outfall]; and (2) POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations [The treatment technology unit process information at each outfall for POTWs greater than 10 MGD]. Example lists of wastewater treatment technology level descriptions and unit operations are provided below.

       Proposed data Elements Supporting EPA's Clean Watershed Needs Survey:
                   Sections 205(a) and 516 of the Clean Water Act

POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Level Description
This data element describes the level of wastewater treatment technology (e.g., primary equivalent to secondary, secondary, advanced, other) at each outfall. This data element only applies to POTWs.
                       122.21 (j) (3) (iii) and CWA 516
                                      1,2
POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations
The code/description of the wastewater treatment technology unit operations (e.g, grit removal, flow equalization, complete mix activated sludge secondary treatment, biological nitrification) at each outfall. This data element only applies to POTWs that discharge above 10 MGD.
                      122.21 (j) (2) (ii) (A) and CWA 516
                                      1,2

      Options for POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Level Description (Select One of The Following)
 Raw Discharge: Effluent that is treated.
 Primary Treatment (45mg/L<BOD): Process in which the effluent that is treated to remove floating debris and solids by screening and sedimentation.
 Advanced Primary: Process in which chemicals are added to further treat primary effluent and increase the amount of solid matter removed.
 Secondary Wastewater Treatment: The minimum level of treatment required for discharges from all municipal wastewater treatment facilities by the Clean Water Act; facilities granted ocean discharge waivers under section 301(h) are exempted from this requirement. The effluent must meet the EPA's minimum removal standards for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (less than or equal to 30 mg/L), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH.
 Advanced Treatment: A level of treatment that is more stringent than secondary treatment or produces a significant reduction in nonconventional or toxic pollutants present in the facility's effluent. The treatment is generally considered advanced if the BOD is less than or equal to 20 mg/L or one or more advanced treatment indicators are present. Advanced Treatment indicators include: BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand), Nitrogen Removal, Phosphorous Removal, Ammonia Removal, Metal Removal, and Synthetic Organic Removal.

      All of the above categories (except Raw Discharge) will include their own drop down selections and each will also include a drop down for Disinfection and Solids Handling.

      Options for POTW Wastewater Treatment Technology Unit Operations
      The following are potential wastewater treatment technology unit operation selections for this data element. It is applicable for each outfall at a facility. This data element only applies to POTWs that discharge above 10 MGD.
Preliminary Treatment
Aerated Grit Chambers
Comminution
Equalization, at POTW
Flotation
Grit Removal
Dewatering assc. w/Grit Removal
Microstrainer, Primary
Pumping, Influent
Pump Stations
Screen (Bar Rack & Coarse)
Screen (Fine & Microstrainers)
Screen, Mechanical Bar
Screen, Bar
Scum Removal
Storage (In-line)
Storage (Off-line, e.g. Retention Basins)
Storage (Lagoon)
Storage (Underground)
Storage (Off-line)
Storage (Other)
Subsurface Flow
Swirl Concentrators
Vortex Solids Separators

Primary Treatment
Aerated Grit Chambers
Aeration (Pre-treatment)
Aeration (Post-treatment)
Chemical Addition - Coagulants
Chemical Addition (Alum), Primary
Chemical Addition (Ferric Chloride), Primary
Chemical Addition (Ferrous Sulfate), Primary
Chemical Addition (Other), Primary
Clarification, In-Channel
Clarification, Intermediate
Clarification, Tube Settlers
Clarification, Other
Equalization, Flow
Imhoff Tank
Lagoon, Aerated
Lagoon, Anaerobic
Lagoon, Gas Utilization
Land Application, Slow Rate, W/O Underdrain
Land Application, Slow Rate, With Underdrain
Land Application, Other
Microstrainer, Secondary
Neutralization
Overland Flow System
Pond, Total Containment
Rapid Infiltration System, W/O Underdrain
Rapid Infiltration System, With Underdrain
Rapid Infiltration System, Other
Sedimentation, Primary
Septage Treatment  -  Separate Stage
Trickling Filter Plastic Media
Trickling Filter, Redwood Slats
Trickling Filter, Rock Media
Trickling Filter, Biofilter
Trickling Filter, Other Media

Secondary Treatment
Activated Sludge, Anaerobic/Anoxic/Oxic
Activated Sludge, Complete Mix
Activated Sludge, Conventional
Activated Sludge, Extended Aeration
Activated Sludge, High Rate
Activated Sludge, Pure Oxygen
Activated Sludge, Step Aeration
Activated Sludge, With Biological Denitrification
Activated Sludge, with Phosphorus Removal
Activated Sludge, Other Mode
Chemical Addition (Alum), Secondary
Chemical Addition (Ferric Chloride), Secondary
Chemical Addition (Other), Secondary
Chemical addition (Phosphorus), Secondary
Clarification, Secondary
Duckweed (Lemna)
Filter, Slow Sand
Filter, Denitrification with Coarse Media
Filter, Denitrification with Fine Media
Filter, Mixed Media
Filter, Moving Bed
Filter, Pressure
Filter, Rapid Sand
Filter, Rock
Filter, Other
Flocculation
Freesurface/Wetland (Marsh System)
Growth Process, Other Attached
Growth Process, Other Suspended
Lagoon, Aerated
Lagoon, Anaerobic
Lagoon, Facultative
Lagoon, Natural (Large Area)
Lagoon, Other
Package Plant, Rotating Biological Contractor (RBC)
Package Plant (Other)
Pond, Stabilization
Reactor (Oxidation Ditch)
Reactor, Sequencing Batch (SBR)
Reactor (Fixed Film)
Reactor (Other)
Sedimentation, Chemical Precipitation
Sedimentation, Other
Settling Tank
Trickling Filter, Plastic Media
Trickling Filter, Redwood Slats
Trickling Filter, Rock Media
Trickling Filter, Biofilter
Trickling Filter, Other Media
Aeration
Pumping, Effluent
Plant Closure Costs

Advanced Treatment
Activated Carbon, Granular
Activated Carbon, Powdered
Activated Carbon, Other
Activated Sludge, Anaerobic/Anoxic
Activated Sludge, Contact Stabilization
Activated Sludge, Extended Aeration
Activated Sludge, With Biological Denitrification
Activated Sludge, Oxic
Activated Sludge, Other
Ammonia Stripping
Biological Denitrification
Carbon Regeneration
Chemical Addition (Alum), Tertiary
Chemical Addition (Ferric Chloride), Tertiary
Chemical Addition (Polymer)
Chemical Addition (Sodium Hydroxide)
Chemical Addition (Sodium Hypochlorite)
Chemical Addition (Other)
Distillation
Duckweed (Spirodela)
Duckweed (Wolffia)
Duckweed (Other)
Evaporation
Filter (Activated Bio-)
Filter (Gravity Sand Beds, single media)
Filter (Other)
Foam Fractionation
Freezing
Gas-Phase Separation
Ion Exchange
Lagoon, Polishing
Lime Treatment, Single Stage Primary
Lime Treatment, Two Stage Primary
Lime Treatment, Two Stage Tertiary
Lime Treatment, Other
Membrane Process (Dialysis)
Membrane Process (Electrodialysis)
Membrane Process (Reverse Osmosis)
Membrane Process (Other)
Nitrification, Biological (Combined and BOD Reduction)
Nitrification, Biological (Separate Stage)
Nitrification, Biological (Other)
Phosphorus Removal, Biological
Phosphorus Removal, Biological (Modified Bardenpho)
Phosphorus Removal, Biological (Phostrip)
Phosphorus Removal, Biological (Other)
Phosphorus Removal, Chemical
Reactor (Oxidation Ditch)
Reactor, Vertical Loop
Reactor, Other
Recarbonation
Reduction
Sedimentation, Other
Solvent Extraction
Sorption
Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR)
Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Membrane Bio-Reactor (MBR)
Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) - Aeration
Biological Nutrient removal (BNR) - Other
Advanced Treatment (Other)
Plant Closure Costs

Disinfection
Dechlorination, Bisulphite
Dechlorination, Sulphur Dioxide
Dechlorination, Other
Disinfection, Breakpoint Chlorination
Disinfection, Chlorination
Disinfection, Gaseous Chloride
Disinfection, Liquid Chloride
Disinfection, Other Chemical
Disinfection, Ozonation
Disinfection, Ultraviolet Radiation
Disinfection, wet Weather
Disinfection, Sodium Hypochlorite
Disinfection, Chlorine Dioxide
Disinfection Hypochlorite Bisulfite
Disinfection, Other

Solids Handling
Biosolids Aerated Storage
Biosolids Aerobic Digestion, Air
Biosolids Aerobic Digestion, Autothermal Thermophilic
Biosolids Aerobic Digestion, Oxygen
Biosolids Air Drying, Sand Beds
Biosolids Air Drying, Other Media
Biosolids Anaerobic Digestion, Thermophilic
Biosolids Anaerobic Digestion, Other
Biosolids Digestion, Other
Biosolids Chemical Addition (Alum)
Biosolids Chemical Addition (Ferric Chloride)
Biosolids Chemical Addition (Polymer)
Biosolids Chemical Addition (Other)
Biosolids Chlorinate Oxidation (Purifax)
Biosolids Co-Incineration With Solid Waste
Biosolids Co-Pyrolysis With Solid Waste
Biosolids Composting, In-Vessel
Biosolids Composting, Static Pile
Biosolids Composting, Window
Biosolids Composting, Other
Biosolids Digestor Gas Utilization Facilities
Renewable Energy Photovoltaic Systems
Biosolids Digestor Gas Flaring
Biosolids Disposal (Monofil)
Biosolids Disposal (Ocean)
Biosolids Disposal (Waste Receiving Station)
Biosolids Disposal (Other)
Biosolids Distribution And/Or Marketing of Biosolids
Biosolids Elutriation
Biosolids Freezing
Biosolids Heat Drying
Biosolids Heat Recovery and Utilization
Biosolids Incineration, Fluidized Bed
Biosolids Incineration, Multiple Hearth
Biosolids Incineration, Rotary Kiln
Biosolids Incineration (Other)
Biosolids Lagoon
Biosolids Land Treatment (Spreading)
Biosolids Landfill/Trenching
Biosolids Lime Stabilization
Biosolids Mechanical Dewatering (Centrifuge)
Biosolids Mechanical Dewatering (Filter Press)
Biosolids Mechanical Dewatering (Pressure Filter)
Biosolids Mechanical Dewatering (Vacuum Filter)
Biosolids Mechanical Dewatering (Other)
Biosolids Pyrolysis
Biosolids Recalcination
Biosolids Thickening, Dissolved Air Flotation
Biosolids Thickening, Gravity
Biosolids Thickening, tank
Biosolids Thickening, Other
Biosolids Vibration
Biosolids Wet Air Oxidation
Biosolids (Heat Treatment-Blowers)
Biosolids Other Treatment
Chemical Addition (Polymer)
Biosolids Cake Storage Hopper
Biosolids Land Costs (Storage)
Biosolids Land Costs (Landfill)


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20853-20854]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07595]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0343; FRL-9709-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Unreasonable Delay Claim Regarding
Toxics Release Inventory Listing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Administrator's March 18, 2022, Memorandum entitled Consent Decrees and
Settlement Agreements to Resolve Environmental Claims Against the
Agency, notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree that
resolves Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, et al. v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, et al., a case in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (4:21-cv-07360-
HSG) that alleges EPA unreasonably delayed taking final action on its
proposed rulemaking to list diisononyl phthalate (DINP) on the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) pursuant to the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know-Act (EPCRA).

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by May 9, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2022-0343 online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments, see the
``Additional Information about Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree'' heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and
our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room is open to visitors
by appointment only. Our Docket Center staff continues to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there may
be a delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand-deliveries and couriers
may be received by scheduled appointment only. For further information
on EPA

Docket Center services and the latest status information, please visit
us online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin Wakefield, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances Law Office MC-2333A, Office of General Counsel, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0343) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    Prior to this lawsuit being filed, EPA received a petition in
February 2000 to add a plastic additive called diisononyl phthalate
(DINP) to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) section 313 toxic chemical list (i.e., the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI)). EPA issued a proposed regulation to list DINP on the
TRI on September 5, 2000. EPA published a Notice of Data Availability
(NODA) with a revised hazard assessment for DINP in the Federal
Register on June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34437) and invited public comment on
the revised assessment.
    Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on September 22, 2021, alleging that
EPA's failure to conclude the rulemaking it initiated in 2000
constitutes an unreasonable delay under Section 706(1) of the
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706(1).
    This proposed consent decree states that no later than January 31,
2023, EPA shall either sign a final rule that lists DINP on the TRI or
sign a notice for publication in the Federal Register to withdraw the
proposed rulemaking to list DINP on the TRI. The proposed consent
decree further states that if the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
determines that a rule to list DINP warrants review under Executive
Order 12866 at the supplemental proposal and/or final rule stage, the
deadline shall be extended by 90 days for each stage of review that OMB
initiates, for a total extension of 180 days if OMB initiates review at
both the supplemental proposal and the final rule stages. Court
approval of this proposed consent decree would resolve all claims in
this case except for any claim for the costs of litigation, including
attorneys' fees.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties to
the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may
withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the
comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of the APA or EPCRA. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent should be withdrawn, the terms of the
proposed consent decree will be affirmed.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-
0343 via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Christopher E. Kaczmarek,
Acting Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-07595 Filed 4-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


1 Appendix B History of New Jersey's Ozone State Implementation Plan This appendix provides a brief history of the previous revisions to New Jersey's ozone SIP.

Attainment Demonstration SIP History On August 31, 1998, New Jersey submitted to the USEPA a SIP revision containing a demonstration of attainment of the 1 hour ozone NAAQS for the New York City/ Northern New Jersey/ Long Island and Philadelphia/ Wilmington/ Trenton nonattainment areas. 1 This original attainment demonstration submittal is hereafter referred to as the State's Phase II Ozone SIP. The Phase II Ozone SIP submittal provided for an attainment demonstration as required by 42 U. S. C. § 7511a( c)( 2)( A), § 182( c)( 2)( A) of the Clean Air Act and addressed the USEPA's subsequent requirements regarding attainment demonstration for the 1 hour NAAQS for ozone. 2,3 New Jersey used a " weight of evidence" to determine the emission reductions needed to attain the ozone standard. A weight of evidence analysis combines results from advanced photochemical grid models and the most recent air quality data to improve the estimate of emission reductions needed to attain. The method used by New Jersey predicts future ozone concentrations from a baseline of actual historic air quality data and the ozone improvement predicted by the photochemical grid model. The improvement is the model predicted base year concentration divided by the model predicted future attainment year concentration. This method takes advantage of the fact that air quality models may be more accurate at calculating relative improvement in air quality as opposed to predicting an absolute concentration at a particular geographic site. 4 In addition to including a demonstration of attainment of the 1 hour NAAQS for ozone for the New York City/ Northern New Jersey/ Long Island and Philadelphia/ Wilmington/ Trenton nonattainment areas and a list of the control measures adopted by the State to date, the Phase II Ozone SIP committed the State to:

1) Submit post 1999 Rate of Progress Plans and any adopted regulations needed to achieve the post 1999 emission reductions by December 31, 2000; 2) Implement the New Jersey portion of the USEPA regional NOx cap ( NOx SIP Call); 3) Undertake a midcourse review and submit a report to the USEPA by December 31, 2002; 4) Evaluate additional control measures which are not currently implemented for 1 NJ SIP Revision, Meeting the Requirements of the Alternative Ozone Attainment Demonstration Policy Phase II Ozone Submittal, August 31, 1998. 2 USEPA, Memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation to the Regional Administrators, Region I X. This Policy is commonly referred as " The March 2nd Policy," March 2, 1995. 3 USEPA, Memorandum from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation to the Regional Administrators, Regions I X, " Guidance for Implementing the 1 Hour Ozone and Pre Existing PM10 NAAQS," December 29, 1997. 4 USEPA, Guidance for Improving Weight of Evidence Through Identification of Additional Emission Reductions Not Modeled, November, 1999. 2 potential future implementation; and, 5) Propose such reasonable and necessary control measures needed to address any shortfall identified in the midcourse review which are necessary for attainment.

In reviewing the attainment demonstrations submitted by New Jersey, as well as other states' submittals ( such as New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland), the USEPA performed its own analyses ( also using the weight of evidence method but with a different base year and different modeling results) and determined that further emission reductions were necessary to insure attainment by the applicable dates. For New Jersey, the USEPA's analyses results were reasonably similar to the uncertainty analysis results New Jersey presented in its Phase II Ozone SIP to quantify the uncertainties incorporated its air quality projections. Therefore, considering both the USEPA and the prior state analyses, the State revised its attainment demonstration to include a commitment to a process designed to secure New Jersey's fair share of the additional emission reductions identified by the USEPA.

On September 12, 2001, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision containing an update to meeting the requirements of the alternative ozone attainment demonstration policy ( Control Measures SIP). 5 Specifically, this SIP revision provided:

1) An enforceable commitment by New Jersey to adopt sufficient measures to address its fair share of the level of additional emission reductions identified by the USEPA, and to revise its Attainment Demonstration accordingly to reflect those measures; 6 2) A revised transportation conformity emission budget that included the Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Standard/ Low Sulfur Gasoline Program benefits; 3) An enforceable commitment to revise the New Jersey Ozone Attainment Demonstration to recalculate the transportation conformity emission budgets to reflect any additional measures adopted ( beyond the Tier 2 Motor Vehicle Standard/ Low Sulfur Program) pertaining to motor vehicles; 4) An enforceable commitment to revise the New Jersey Ozone Attainment Demonstration to recalculate the transportation conformity emission budgets, within one year after the MOBILE6 model is released and required for use in the development of SIPs; 5) A list of possible additional control measures from which a suite of measures can be drawn that would be expected to meet New Jersey's fair share of the USEPA   identified emission reduction shortfall; and, 6) An enforceable commitment to perform a midcourse review by December of 2003 that was subsequently changed to December of 2004.

The control measure SIP included the following additional rules that implemented control measures: NOx rule, consumer products rule, portable fuel containers rule, architectural and industrial maintenance coatings rule, mobile equipment refinishing rule, and solvent cleaning 5 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, State Implementation Plan ( SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the One Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Update to Meeting the Requirements of the Alternative Ozone Attainment Demonstration Policy Additional Emission Reduction Commitment and Transportation Conformity Budgets, April 26, 2000. 6 64 Fed. Reg. 70380, ( December 16, 1999). 3 operations rule. The projected emission benefits from these rules just covered the USEPA identified shortfall for the Philadelphia/ Wilmington/ Trenton nonattainment area and more than covered the USEPA identified shortfall for the New York City/ Northern New Jersey/ Long Island nonattainment area.

Rate of Progress SIP History The State submitted its original 1996 15 percent Rate of Progress plans to the USEPA on November 15, 1993.7 Subsequently, on December 31, 1996, New Jersey submitted to the USEPA, as part of its Phase I Ozone SIP submittal, a revision which updated its 1993 15 percent Rate of Progress plans and included its 1999 24 percent Rate of Progress plans to the USEPA. 8 The USEPA granted conditional interim approval to New Jersey's Phase I Ozone SIP submittal on June 30, 1997.9 The USEPA's approval of New Jersey's Phase I Ozone SIP was conditional based on the modeling contained in the 15 percent and 24 percent Rate of Progress Plans. 10 On December 12, 1997, the USEPA disapproved the 15 percent Rate of Progress Plans' portion of New Jersey's Phase I Ozone SIP due to the realization that the benefits claimed in these plans for the State's enhanced I/ M program would not be obtained. 11 On February 5, 1999, the State submitted revised 15 percent Rate of Progress and 24 percent Rate of Progress plans that no longer relied on the benefits anticipated from the enhanced I/ M program. These revised plans were approved by the USEPA on April 23, 1999.12 On December 13, 1999, the State began implementation of its enhanced I/ M program.

On March 31, 2001, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision containing the actual 1996 inventory and Rate of Progress plans for 2002, 2005 and 2007.13 The Rate of Progress SIP contained the remaining Rate of Progress plans for each milestone year up to and including the attainment years for each applicable nonattainment area. Using control measures consistent with those in the State's demonstration of attainment of the 1 hour ozone standard, it was shown that the Rate of Progress targets were achieved. In addition, the State agreed to find further emission reductions, identified by the USEPA, and is currently working with other Ozone Transport 7 New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, State Implementation Plan ( SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Meeting the Federal Clean Air Act Requirements, November 15, 1993. 8 The State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, State Implementation Plan ( SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Meeting the Requirements of the Alternative Ozone Attainment Demonstration Policy, Phase I Ozone SIP submittal, December 31, 1996. 9 62 Fed. Reg. 35100 ( June 30, 1997). 10 In a letter dated May 29, 1997, New Jersey committed to perform the modeling necessary to estimate the emissions reductions that would result from the enhanced I/ M program, as implemented, within 12 months from the effective date of the USEPA's approval action ( that is, by July 30, 1998). 11 Letter dated December 12, 1997 to New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman from Regional Administrator Muszynski, and a similar but more detailed letter dated December 12, 1997 to Commissioner Robert C. Shinn, Jr., NJDEP and Commissioner John J. Haley, Jr., New Jersey Department of Transportation, from Deputy Regional Administrator William J. Muszynski, P. E., USEPA, Region II. This action was later formalized by the USEPA at 63 Fed. Reg. 45399 ( August 26, 1998). 12 64 Fed. Reg. 19913 ( April 23, 1999). 13 NJDEP, State Implementation Plan revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, New Jersey 1996 Actual Emission Inventory and Rate of Progress ( ROP) Plans for 2002, 2005 and 2007, March 31, 2001. 4 Region states in this regard. Once these measures are adopted, projected controlled emission levels would decrease further. The Rate of Progress SIP also contained revised transportation conformity emission budgets.

The purpose of the Rate of Progress submittals was to demonstrate steady incremental progress ( three percent of the 1990 VOC baseline emission level averaged over each consecutive three year period beginning in 1991) leading towards the ultimate goal of attainment. The purpose of the attainment demonstration, however, was to assess the overall emission reductions necessary to actually achieve attainment, which could be greater than or less than the Rate of Progress incremental reductions. If the attainment demonstration shows that a state needs less than three percent over each consecutive three year period to reach attainment, it can petition the USEPA to reduce the Rate of Progress requirement for their particular state. 14 In New Jersey's case, however, attaining the standard requires emission reductions that exceed Rate of Progress requirements. By way of illustration, the control measures in the attainment demonstration were incorporated in the Rate of Progress SIP, and the resulting controlled emission levels indicate that the inventories for New Jersey portion of the New York City/ Northern New Jersey/ Long Island and Philadelphia/ Wilmington/ Trenton nonattainment areas are well below the targets derived from the three percent reduction over each consecutive three year period. For example, for the New York City/ Northern New Jersey/ Long Island nonattainment area for 2007, the sum of the New Jersey VOC and NOx percentage emission reduction was 83.5 percent as compared to a 48 percent Rate of Progress test requirement. Therefore, for New Jersey, the emission reductions needed to attain the ozone standard significantly exceed the three percent per year Rate of Progress requirements.

2003 New Jersey Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Inventories and Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets Using the MOBILE6 Model In 2003, New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to fulfill its commitment to revise 2005 and 2007 onroad motor vehicle emission budgets for the Philadelphia/ Wilmington/ Trenton nonattainment area and New York City/ Northern New Jersey/ Long Island nonattainment area using the new MOBILE6 model. 15 In addition, this SIP revision showed that the new levels of onroad motor vehicle emissions calculated using MOBILE6 continue to support predicted achievement of rate of progress requirements and projected attainment of the 1 hour ozone NAAQS by the attainment dates for each nonattainment area. The MOBILE6 generated inventories were also used to establish transportation conformity emission budgets for the appropriate Metropolitan Planning Organizations ( MPOs) in New Jersey.

The USEPA approved the revised emission inventories and transportation conformity emission budgets using MOBILE6 on May 5, 2003 at 68 FR 23662.

14 42 U. S. C. § 7511a( c)( 2)( B)( ii). 15 NJDEP, SIP Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Ozone NAAQS, New Jersey Revised Motor Vehicle Emission Inventories and Transportation Conformity Budgets Using the MOBILE6 Model, April 4, 2003. 5 2004 New Jersey Revised Motor Vehicle Transportation Conformity Emission Budgets Using the MOBILE6 Model In 2004, New Jersey submitted a request to the USEPA for a SIP revision to establish updated transportation conformity emission budgets that incorporated new data and the use of the new USEPA motor vehicle emissions model ( MOBILE6) that was required for use in future conformity determinations for New Jersey. Transportation conformity emission budgets for carbon monoxide, VOCs, and NOx were updated to reflect the most recent version of the USEPA's emission factor prediction model and the latest vehicle registration data. The latest vehicle registration data were used to establish new estimates of the age distribution of New Jersey's onroad motor vehicle fleet. This SIP revision did not affect any of the planned or implemented control measures for carbon monoxide, VOCs, and NOx. In addition, the updated budgets did not indicate a need for any additional control measures for New Jersey to maintain attainment of the carbon monoxide NAAQS or reach attainment of the 1 hour ozone NAAQS.

The USEPA approved New Jersey's SIP revision request on August 30, 2004 at 69 FR 52834 52836.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48382-48385]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19761]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75631; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change to Amend Fee Schedule

August 6, 2015.
    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 August 5, 2015, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to (i) establish an
additional transaction fee rebate for Priority Customer \3\ orders
submitted by Members that meet certain percentage thresholds of
national customer volume in multiply-listed options classes listed on
MIAX; and (ii) establish new monthly volume thresholds in such option
classes in the Priority Customer Rebate Program (the ``Program'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that
(i) is not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place
more than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). See Exchange Rule
100.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 74758 (April 17,
2015), 80 FR 22756 (April 23, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-27); 74007
(January 9 [sic], 2015), 80 FR 1537 (January 12, 2015) (SR-MIAX-
2014-69); 72799 (August 8, 2014), 79 FR 47698 (August 14, 2014) (SR-
MIAX-2014-40); 72355 (June 10, 2014), 79 FR 34368 (June 16, 2014)
(SR-MIAX-2014-25); 71698 (March 12, 2014), 79 FR 15185 (March 18,
2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-12); 71283 (January 10, 2014), 79 FR 2914
(January 16, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2013-63); 71009 (December 6, 2013), 78
FR 75629 (December 12, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-56).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priority Customer Rebate Program
    Currently, the Exchange credits each Member the per contract amount
resulting from each Priority Customer order transmitted by that Member
that is executed electronically on the Exchange in all multiply-listed
option classes (excluding Qualified Contingent Cross Orders,\5\ mini-
options,\6\ Priority Customer-to-Priority Customer Orders, PRIME
Auction Or Cancel Responses, PRIME Contra-side Orders, PRIME Orders for
which both the Agency and Contra-side Order are Priority Customers,\7\
and executions related to contracts that are routed to one or more
exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and Locked/
Crossed Market Plan referenced in MIAX Rule 1400)), provided the Member
meets certain tiered percentage thresholds in a month as described in
the Priority Customer Rebate Program table.\8\ For each Priority
Customer order transmitted by that Member which is executed
electronically on the Exchange in MIAX Select Symbols, MIAX will
continue to credit each member at the separate per contract rate for
MIAX Select Symbols.\9\ For each Priority Customer order submitted into
the PRIME Auction as a PRIME Agency Order, MIAX will continue to credit
each member at the separate per contract rate for PRIME Agency
Orders.\10\ The volume thresholds are calculated based on the customer
volume over the course of the month. Volume will be recorded for and
credits

will be delivered to the Member Firm that submits the order to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Qualified Contingent Cross Order is comprised of an
originating order to buy or sell at least 1,000 contracts, or 10,000
mini-option contracts, that is identified as being part of a
qualified contingent trade, as that term is defined in
Interpretations and Policies .01 below, coupled with a contra-side
order or orders totaling an equal number of contracts. A Qualified
Contingent Cross Order is not valid during the opening rotation
process described in Rule 503. See Exchange Rule 516(j).
    \6\ A mini-option is a series of option contracts with a 10
share deliverable on a stock, Exchange Traded Fund share, Trust
Issued Receipt, or other Equity Index-Linked Security. See Exchange
Rule 404, Interpretations and Policies .08.
    \7\ The MIAX Price Improvement Mechanism (``PRIME'') is a
process by which a Member may electronically submit for execution
(``Auction'') an order it represents as agent (``Agency Order'')
against principal interest, and/or an Agency Order against solicited
interest. For a complete description of PRIME and of PRIME order
types and responses, see Exchange Rule 515A.
    \8\ See MIAX Fee Schedule Section (1)(a)(iii).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange [sic] Release Nos. 74291 (February
18, 2015), 80 FR 9841 (February 24, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-09); 74288
(February 18, 2015), 80 FR 9837 (February 24, 2015) (SR-MIAX-2015-
08); 71700 (March 12, 2014), 79 FR 15188 (March 18, 2014) (SR-MIAX-
2014-13); 72356 (June 10, 2014), 79 FR 34384 (June 16, 2014) (SR-
MIAX-2014-26); 72567 (July 8, 2014), 79 FR 40818 (July 14, 2014)
(SR-MIAX-2014-34); 73328 (October 9, 2014), 79 FR 62230 (October 16,
2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-50).
    \10\ See Securities Exchange [sic] Release No. 72943 (August 28,
2014), 79 FR 52785 (September 4, 2014) (SR-MIAX-2014-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The amount of the rebate is calculated beginning with the first
executed contract at the applicable threshold per contract credit with
rebate payments made at the highest achieved volume tier for each
contract traded in that month. For example, under the current Program,
a Member that executes a number of Priority Customer contracts equal to
2.40% of the national customer volume in multiply-listed options during
a particular calendar month, such Member will currently receive a
credit of $0.17 for each Priority Customer contract executed during
that month, even though there are lower incremental percentages for
lower volume tiers leading up to the 2.4% volume threshold.
    The current Priority Customer Rebate Program table designates the
following monthly volume tiers and corresponding per contract credits

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Percentage thresholds of national customer volume in      Per contract       Per contract       Per contract
     multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX         credit (non-      credit in MIAX    credit for PRIME
                       (monthly)                          select  symbols)    select symbols      agency order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00%-0.40%............................................              $0.00              $0.00              $0.10
Above 0.40%-0.75%......................................               0.10               0.10               0.10
Above 0.75%-1.75%......................................               0.15               0.20               0.10
Above 1.75%-2.40%......................................               0.17               0.20               0.10
Above 2.40%............................................               0.18               0.20               0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section (1)(a)(iii) of its Fee
Schedule to reflect a new schedule of percentage thresholds of national
customer volume, and new corresponding monthly per contract credits.
Specifically, the new thresholds will be as set forth in the following
table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Percentage thresholds of national customer volume in      Per contract       Per contract       Per contract
     multiply-listed options classes listed on MIAX        credit  (non-      credit in MIAX    credit for PRIME
                       (monthly)                          select  symbols)    select symbols      agency order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.00%-0.50%............................................              $0.00              $0.00              $0.10
Above 0.50%-1.00%......................................               0.10               0.10               0.10
Above 1.00%-1.75%......................................               0.15               0.20               0.10
Above 1.75%............................................          \11\ 0.17               0.20               0.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed new monthly volume tiers
and corresponding credits should provide incentives for Members to
direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The $0.17 per contract credit described in Tier 4 will be
applied to each contract traded in non-Select Symbols in that month,
beginning with the first contract executed in a particular month if
the Tier 4 volume threshold is achieved. In addition to the $0.17
rebate, a supplemental rebate of $0.03 per contract will be applied
to contracts executed in excess of 1.75% of the monthly national
volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIAX Select Symbols
    The proposed new monthly volume thresholds and per contract credits
will apply to MIAX Select Symbols,\12\ with the per contract credit
increasing for certain monthly volume thresholds. The monthly per
contract rebate will remain at $0.20 for all contracts executed in
Select Symbols when the 1.00 percent threshold is exceeded for all
applicable symbols.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``MIAX Select Symbols'' means options overlying
AA, AAL, AAPL, AIG, AMAT, AMD, AMZN, BA, BABA, BBRY, BIDU, BP, C,
CAT, CBS, CELG, CLF, CVX, DAL, EBAY, EEM, FB, FCX, GE, GILD, GLD,
GM, GOOGL, GPRO, HAL, HTZ, INTC, IWM, JCP, JNJ, JPM, KMI, KO, MO,
MRK, NFLX, NOK, NQ, ORCL, PBR, PFE, PG, QCOM, QQQ, RIG, S, SPY,
SUNE, T, TSLA, USO, VALE, VXX, WBA, WFC, WMB, WY, X, XHB, XLE, XLF,
XLP, XOM, XOP and YHOO. See Fee Schedule, note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to delete Tier 5 of the Priority
Customer Rebate Program, which currently affords a rebate of $0.17
[sic] per contract for contracts executed when the total volume for the
month exceeds of 2.4% of the national customer volume. Under the
proposal, all contracts (other than Select Symbols) traded in a
particular month when the Tier 4 volume threshold of 1.75% of the
national monthly customer volume is exceeded will receive a credit of
$0.17, and contracts executed in non-Select symbols in excess of 1.75%
of national monthly customer volume will receive a supplemental rebate
of $0.03 per contract. The Exchange believes that this new, increased
rebate obviates the need for the Tier 5 threshold. The Exchange is
proposing amendments to the Fee Schedule to delete references to the
Tier 5 threshold throughout.
    All other aspects of the Program will remain unchanged. The
Exchange is not proposing any change to the per contract credit for
PRIME Agency Orders. Consistent with the current Fee Schedule, the
Exchange will continue to aggregate the contracts resulting from
Priority Customer orders transmitted and executed electronically on the
Exchange from affiliated Members for purposes of the thresholds above,
provided there is at least 75% common ownership between the firms as
reflected on each firm's Form BD, Schedule A. In the event of a MIAX
System outage or other interruption of electronic trading on MIAX, the
Exchange will adjust the national customer volume in multiply-listed
options for the duration of the outage. A Member may request to receive
its credit under the Priority Customer Rebate Program as a separate
direct payment.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage Members to
direct greater Priority Customer trade volume to the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that increased Priority Customer volume will attract
more liquidity to the Exchange, which benefits all market participants.
Increased retail customer order flow should attract professional
liquidity providers (Market Makers), which in turn should make the MIAX
marketplace an attractive venue where Market Makers will submit narrow
quotations with greater size, deepening and enhancing the quality of
the MIAX marketplace. This should provide more trading opportunities
and tighter spreads for other market participants and result in a
corresponding increase

in order flow from such other market participants.
    The specific volume thresholds of the Program's tiers are set based
upon business determinations and an analysis of current volume levels.
The volume thresholds are intended to incentivize firms to increase the
number of Priority Customer orders they send to the Exchange so that
they can achieve the next threshold, and to encourage new participants
to send Priority Customer orders as well. Increasing the number of
orders sent to the Exchange will in turn provide tighter and more
liquid markets, and therefore attract more business overall. Similarly,
the different credit rates at the different tier levels are based on an
analysis of current revenue and volume levels and are intended to
provide increasing ``rewards'' to MIAX participants for increasing the
volume of Priority Customer orders sent to, and Priority Customer
contracts executed on, the Exchange. The specific amounts of the tiers
and rates are set in order to encourage suppliers of Priority Customer
order flow to reach for higher tiers.
    The credits paid out as part of the program will be drawn from the
general revenues of the Exchange.\13\ The Exchange calculates volume
thresholds on a monthly basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Despite providing credits under the Program, the Exchange
represents that it will continue to have adequate resources to fund
its regulatory program and fulfill its responsibilities as a self-
regulatory organization while the Program is in effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \15\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is fair, equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory. The Program and the proposed increase in
the per contract rebate is reasonably designed because it will
encourage providers of Priority Customer order flow to send that
Priority Customer order flow to the Exchange in order to receive an
increasing per contract credit with each volume tier achieved. The
Exchange believes that the proposed new tier structure and supplemental
rebate should improve market quality for all market participants. The
proposed changes to the rebate program are fair and equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory because they apply equally to all Priority
Customer orders. All similarly situated Priority Customer orders are
subject to the same rebate schedule, and access to the Exchange is
offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. Furthermore, the
proposed increase in credits for executing higher percentages of total
national customer volume is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the proposed rates and changes encourage Members to direct
increased amounts of Priority Customer contracts to the Exchange.
Market participants want to trade with Priority Customer order flow. To
the extent Priority Customer order flow is increased by the proposal,
market participants will increasingly compete for the opportunity to
trade on the Exchange including sending more orders and providing
narrower and larger sized quotations in the effort to trade with such
Priority Customer order flow. The resulting increased volume and
liquidity will benefit all Exchange participants by providing more
trading opportunities and tighter spreads.

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 Exchange believes that the
proposed change would increase both intermarket and intramarket
competition by encouraging Members to direct their Priority Customer
orders to the Exchange, which should enhance the quality of quoting and
increase the volume of contracts traded on MIAX. Respecting the
competitive position of non-Priority Customers, the Exchange believes
that this rebate program should provide additional liquidity that
enhances the quality of its markets and increases the number of trading
opportunities on MIAX for all participants, including non-Priority
Customers, who will be able to compete for such opportunities. This
should benefit all market participants and improve competition on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and rebates
to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to
the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
reflects this competitive environment because it increases rebates and
thus encourages market participants to direct their customer order
flow, to provide liquidity, and to attract additional transaction
volume to the Exchange. Given the robust competition for volume among
options markets, many of which offer the same products, enhancing the
existing volume based customer rebate program to attract order flow is
consistent with the goals of the Act. The Exchange believes that the
proposal will enhance competition, because market participants will
have another additional pricing consideration in determining where to
execute orders and post liquidity if they factor the benefits of the
proposed rebate program into the determination.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\16\ At any time within 60 days of the
filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission
that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest,
for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2015-51 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-51. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2015-51, and should be
submitted on or before September 2, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19761 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P