[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 240 (Thursday, December 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 74200]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3357-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Delaware; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Delaware (FEMA-3357-EM), dated October 29, 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 emergency 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. 2012-30151 Filed 12-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


RTR Docket

Data Files Index

Petroleum Refinery ANPRM  Input File in MS Access (from RTR Webpage)

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0280

Tracking Sheet of Petroleum Refineries ANPRM Comments

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0282

Summary Memo of  ANPRM Comments on Petroleum Refinery Emissions Data

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0283

Petroleum Refinery Individual Facility Revision Files

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0284

Petroleum Refinery NPRM HEM 3 Input Files

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0285

Changes made to Petroleum Input Files and Modeling Domain Set up (Version 2) Memo dated August 13, 2007

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0286

Petroleum Refinery NPRM HEM 3 Output Files

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0287

Petroleum Refinery NPRM Output File - HEM 3 Source ID Crosswalk

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0288

Petroleum Refinery NPRM  Output File in MS Access

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0289

10.	Surveys and Correspondence with 22 Petroleum Refineries

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0290

11.	Correspondence Associated with RTR ANPRM and Petroleum Refineries

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0291

12.	Attachments for Correspondence Associated with RTR ANPRM and Petroleum 	Refineries

	RTR Docket Document No EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0859-DRAFT-0292


-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:32PM -----
To: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
From: "Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Date: 02/12/2010 06:31PM
cc: RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
Subject: Clarifying questions on RICE
Hi Melanie,

Attached you'll find a spreadsheet of the costs and benefits for area source engines between
300 and 500 HP.  The attached analysis shows that requiring controls for these engines, if
they run less than ~100 hrs per year, is not cost-beneficial (costs of controls exceed the
PM2.5 benefits).  Do you know how many engines in this group run less than 100 hours per
year and are not emergency engines?

Additionally, for these sized engines running 100 hours, the estimate of reporting costs is 1/3
of the total annual costs.  Given that these engines will have control devices installed, and
emissions reductions will be achieved, is there any flexibility to ease the reporting
requirements?  Furthermore, is there any flexibility in lessening in the reporting requirements
for the area source engines subject to emissions limits (and thus technology controls)?

Thanks,
Cortney


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55932-55933]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23048]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008]

National Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Advisory Council will meet on September 27-28,
2011, in Arlington, VA. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The National Advisory Council will meet Tuesday, September 27,
2011, from 9:30 a.m. EDT to 5:30 p.m. EDT and on Wednesday, September
28, 2011, 8:30 a.m. EDT to 5:10 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting
may close early if the committee has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Crystal City Marriott at
Reagan National Airport, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA
22202.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Patricia A. Kalla of the Office of the National Advisory Council as
soon as possible. See contact information under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the issues to be considered by the committee as listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Written comments or requests
to make oral presentations must be submitted in writing no later than
September 16, 2011 and must be identified by Docket ID FEMA-2007-0008
and may be submitted by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the Docket ID FEMA-
2007-0008 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 840, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the Docket ID FEMA-2007-
0008 for this action. Comments received will be posted without
alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received by the National Advisory Council, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    A public comment period will be held during the meeting on
September 28, 2011, from 2:30 p.m. EDT to 3:15 p.m. EDT, and speakers
are requested to register in advance, be present and seated by 1:30
p.m. EDT, and limit their comments to 3 minutes. With 3 minutes per
speaker, the public commented is limited to no more than 10 speakers.
Please note that the public comment period may start and end before the
time indicated, if the committee has finished its business. Contact
Patricia A. Kalla, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), to register as a
speaker.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Kalla, DFO, Office of the
National Advisory Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency (Room
832), 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, telephone (202)
646-3746, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, and e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The National
Advisory Council Web site is located at: http://www.fema.gov/about/nac/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463). The
National Advisory Council (NAC) advises the Administrator of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on all aspects of emergency
management. The NAC incorporates State, local, and Tribal governments,
and private sector partners' input in the development and revision of
FEMA policies and strategies. FEMA's Office of the NAC serves as the
focal point for all NAC coordination.

Agenda

    The NAC will meet for the purpose of reviewing the progress and/or
potential recommendations of the following NAC subcommittees:
Preparedness and Protection, Response and Recovery, Public Engagement
and Mission Support, and Federal Insurance and Mitigation. The NAC will
discuss ``Whole Community'' concept and how to effectively engage all
members of the community. In the area of flood risk mapping,
discussions will focus on messaging and risk perception. The

NAC will hold discussions on the Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-
8) on National Preparedness, the Strategic Foresight Initiative (SFI),
the Emergency Management Institute, and the Radiological Emergency
Preparedness (REP) Program. Additionally, members appointed on June 15,
2011, will be sworn-in during the first day of the meeting.
    PPD-8, signed on March 30, 2011, directs the development of a
national preparedness goal that identifies the core capabilities
necessary for preparedness and a national preparedness system to guide
activities that will enable the Nation to achieve the goal. PPD-8
replaces Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8) and Annex
1.
    FEMA launched the SFI to promote broader and longer term thinking
on world changes that can have major effects on the emergency
management community. More information on SFI can be found online at
https://www.fema.gov/about/programs/oppa/strategic_foresight_initiative.shtm.
    FEMA established the REP Program to (1) Ensure the health and
safety of citizens living around commercial nuclear power plants would
be adequately protected in the event of a nuclear power plant accident;
and (2) inform and educate the public about radiological emergency
preparedness. More information on the REP Program can be found online
at http://www.fema.gov/about/divisions/thd_repp.shtm.

    Dated: September 2, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-23048 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-48-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 78 (Wednesday, April 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22689-22690]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0078]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Animal Drug User Fee
Act Cover Sheet

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by May 23,
2014.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0539.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B, Rockville,
MD 20850<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Animal Drug User Fee Cover Sheet; Form FDA 3546 (OMB Control Number
0910-0539)--Extension

    Under Section 740 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the
FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 379j-12), as amended by Animal Drug User Fee Act
(ADUFA) (Pub. L. 108-130), FDA has the authority to assess and collect
for certain animal drug user fees. Because concurrent submission of
user fees with applications and supplements is required, review of an
application cannot begin until the fee is submitted. The types of fees
that require a cover sheet are certain animal drug application fees and
certain supplemental animal drug application fees. The ADUFA cover
sheet (Form FDA 3546) is designed to provide the minimum necessary
information to determine whether a fee is required for the review of an
application or supplement, to determine the amount of the fee required,
and to assure that each animal drug user fee payment and each animal
drug application for which payment is made is appropriately linked to
the payment that is made. The form, when completed electronically, will
result in the generation of a unique payment identification number used
in tracking the payment. FDA will use the information collected to
initiate administrative screening of new animal drug applications and
supplements to determine if payment has been received.
    In the Federal Register of February 3, 2014 (79 FR 6199), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of       Number of responses     Total annual    Average burden
  FD&C Act section amended by ADUFA        FDA Form No.         respondents        per respondent         responses       per response     Total hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
740(a)(1)...........................  3546 (Cover Sheet)....              17   1 time for each                     17                1               17
                                                                                application.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Respondents to this collection of information are new animal drug
applicants or manufacturers. Based on FDA's database system, there are
an estimated 173 manufacturers of products or sponsors of new animal
drugs potentially subject to ADUFA. However, not all manufacturers or
sponsors will have any submissions in a given year and some may have
multiple submissions. The total number of annual responses is based on
the average number of submissions received by FDA in fiscal years 2011-
2013. The estimated hours per response are based on past FDA experience
with the various submissions. The hours per response are based on the
average of these estimates.

    Dated: April 17, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-09202 Filed 4-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9744-9745]
[DOCID:fr05mr07-44]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8283-2]

Proposed Settlement Agreement, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

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

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a
proposed settlement agreement, to address a lawsuit filed by the Center
for Biological Diversity, Preston Forsythe and Hilary Lambert
(collectively ``Plaintiffs''): Center for Biological Diversity et al.
v. Johnson, No. 06-1350 (D. D.C.). On July 31, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a
complaint alleging that EPA had a mandatory duty under 42 U.S.C.
7661(b)(2), to respond within 60 days to Plaintiffs Title V petition
requesting that EPA object to the proposed Tennessee Valley Authority's
(``TVA'') Paradise Fossil Plant Title V Operating Permit (``TVA
Paradise Title V Operating Permit''). The complaint also alleges that
EPA had a mandatory duty under 42 U.S.C. 7661(b)(3) and (c) and 40 CFR
71.4(e) to modify, terminate, or revoke, or issue or deny, the proposed
TVA Paradise Title V Operating permit and that EPA has unreasonably
delayed modifying, terminating, or revoking, or issuing or denying, the
permit. The complaint also alleges that EPA has unreasonably delayed
responding to the Plaintiffs' petition for rulemaking requesting,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(a), that EPA promulgate a rule to amend the
Kentucky State Implementation Plan to fully incorporate the credible
evidence rule. Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement,
EPA shall by May 25, 2007, take final action to grant or deny
Plaintiffs' April 2005 petition for rulemaking. The proposed settlement
agreement also provides that EPA shall conclude a completeness
determination within 60 days after receipt of TVA's forthcoming Title V
federal operating permit application for the Paradise Plant. Within 18
months after determining the application is complete, EPA shall take
final action to issue the permit.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be
received by April 4, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2007-0190, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailed to EPA Docket Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Apple Chapman, Air and Radiation Law
Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Settlement

    On February 18, 2005, EPA formally objected to the issuance of the
proposed TVA Paradise's Title V Operating Permit submitted by the
Kentucky Division of Air Quality (``KDAQ''). On April 21, 2005,
Plaintiffs filed a petition requesting that EPA object to the proposed
TVA Paradise Title V Operating Permit and a petition for rulemaking
requesting that EPA amend the Kentucky State Implementation Plant to
fully incorporate the credible evidence rule. On August 18, 2006, KDAQ
withdrew the proposed TVA Paradise Title V Operating Permit.
Subsequently, EPA initiated a Part 71 permit process for the TVA
Paradise Plant and on December 14, 2006, EPA published notice in the
Federal Register denying Plaintiffs' Title V petition. EPA has filed a
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.
    The settlement agreement, which is subject to CAA section 113(g),
provides that by May 25, 2007, EPA shall take final action to grant or
deny Plaintiffs' petition for rulemaking. The agreement also provides
that within 60 days after receipt of TVA's forthcoming permit
application to EPA for a Title V permit for the Paradise Plant, EPA
shall conclude a completeness determination. Within 18 months after
determining the application is complete, EPA shall take final action to
issue the permit. Should KDAQ submit a new proposed CAA Title V
Operating Permit for the TVA Paradise Plant that EPA determines
adequately addresses the issues raised by EPA in its February 18, 2006
objections, EPA must notify Plaintiff's counsel with written notice
that the commitments with regard to the Title V Federal Operating
Permit for the TVA Paradise Plant are null and void. Within 20 days
after EPA has fulfilled the above obligations or after agreement
becomes null and void, Plaintiffs shall file a motion to dismiss with
prejudice.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to
the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as
parties or intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the
Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed
settlement agreement if the

comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such
consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with
the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice
determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent
to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the
agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement

A. How Can I Get a Copy of the Settlement?

    Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2007-0190 which contains a copy of the
settlement. The official public docket is available for public viewing
at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA
Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-
1752.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or

view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change,

unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information
claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute is not included in the official public docket or in the
electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material,
including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not
be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only
in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
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.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. 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 http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and

included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: February 27, 2007.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
 [FR Doc. E7-3759 Filed 3-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54144-54146]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19313]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-78508; File No. SR-C2-2016-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule To
Amend the Fees Schedule

August 9, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 1, 2016, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated (the
``Exchange'' or ``C2'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.c2exchange.com/Legal/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the 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 Fees Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to establish a fee scale for the purchase of Market
Maker Quoting and Order Bandwidth Packets (``Bandwidth Packets''),
provide for an allotment scale of CMI CAS Servers, and adopt a fee for
extra CMI CAS Servers.
    The Exchange first proposes to adopt a fee scale for Bandwidth
Packets. Particularly, the Exchange proposes to provide that the first
through ninth Bandwidth Packets obtained by a Trading Permit Holder
(``TPH'') would cost $1,000 per packet per month, the tenth through
fourteenth Bandwidth Packets obtained by that TPH would cost $500 per
packet per month, and the fifteenth and each additional Bandwidth
Packet obtained by that TPH would cost $250 per packet per month. The
Exchange believes the proposed fee scale will encourage Market Makers
to purchase additional Bandwidth Packets which will allow them to quote
and trade more on the Exchange, thereby providing more trading
opportunities for all market participants.
    The Exchange next proposes to amend its Fees Schedule with respect
to Connectivity Charges. By way of background, in order to connect to
CBOE Command, which allows a TPH to trade on the C2 System, a TPH must
connect via either a CMI or FIX interface (depending on the
configuration of the TPH's own systems). For TPHs that connect via a
CMI interface, they must use CMI CAS Servers. Currently each TPH is
provided one CAS Server plus access to a pool of shared backup CAS
Servers. In order to ensure that a CAS Server is not overburdened by
quoting activity for Market Makers, the Exchange proposes to allot each
Market Maker a certain number of CASs (in addition to the shared
backups) based on the amount of quoting bandwidth that they have.
Quoting Bandwidth would be determined by the number of Bandwidth
Packets the TPH holds in addition to 5 times the number of Market Maker
Trading Permits it holds.\3\ Additionally, the Exchange will aggregate
the Market Maker Trading Permits and Market Maker Quoting and Order
Entry Bandwidth Packets from affiliated TPHs (TPHs with at least 75%
common ownership between the firms as reflected on each firm's Form BD,
Schedule A) for purposes of determining the number of Trading Permits
and Market Maker Quoting and Order Entry Bandwidth Packets a TPH holds.
Particularly, the Exchange proposes to add a chart listing the amounts
of equivalent Bandwidth Packets and corresponding CAS Servers:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that a C2 Market Maker Quoting and Order
Entry Bandwidth Packet is equivalent to 1/5th of a Market Maker
Trading Permit. As such, each Market-Maker Trading Permit a TPH
holds is equivalent to 5 Quoting and Order Entry Bandwidth Packet
for purposes of bandwidth. Therefore, if a TPH has 2 Market Maker
Trading Permits and 16 Quoting and Order Entry Bandwidth Packets,
the TPH has an equivalent of 26 Bandwidth Packets. The Exchange
proposes to include this example in the Fees Schedule to provide
additional clarity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Total bandwidth  packets equivalency              CAS Servers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-25......................................  1 + shared backup.
26-50.....................................  2 + shared backup.
51-75.....................................  3 + shared backup.
76-100....................................  4 + shared backup.
100+......................................  5 + shared backup.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange proposes to provide that if a Market Maker
wishes to connect via an extra CMI CAS Server (in order to segregate
TPH users for business or availability purposes) beyond the TPH's
allotted number of CMI CAS Servers (described above), that TPH will be
assessed a fee of $2,000 per month for each extra CMI CAS Server. The
purpose of this proposed change is to manage the allotment of CMI CAS
Servers in a fair manner and to prevent the Exchange from being
required to expend large amounts of resources (the provision and
management of the CMI CAS Servers can be costly) in order to provide
TPHs with an unlimited amount of CMI CAS Servers. The purpose of the
fee for extra CMI CAS Servers is to cover the costs related to the
provision, management and upkeep of such CMI CAS Servers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\4\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \5\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling,

processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, 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. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of
the Act,\6\ which requires that Exchange rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is reasonable
because the proposed change provides the opportunity to have lower fees
for the Market Maker Quoting and Order Entry Bandwidth Packets than
previously. The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the fee scale will apply to all Market Makers
uniformly. The Exchange believes it's equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to establish a discounted fee scale for Market Maker
Quoting and Order Entry Bandwidth Packets because Market Makers, unlike
other C2 market participants, take on a number of obligations,
including quoting obligations that other market participants do not
have. Further, the proposed change is intended to incent Market Makers
to quote and trade more on the Exchange, thereby providing more trading
opportunities for all market participants.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed change regarding CMI CAS
Servers is reasonable because each CMI CAS Server should be capable of
handling the bandwidth needs of at least the equivalent of 25 Bandwidth
Packets. This proposed allotment is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will be applied to all Market Makers
accessing CBOE Command via a CMI connection. It is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to provide allotment of CASs for Market Makers
only, because the impact of non-quoting activity does not result in the
need for more than one CAS. The proposed fee of $2,000 for each extra
CMI CAS Server that a Market Maker requests is reasonable because it
allows the Exchange to recoup the costs related to the provision,
maintenance and upkeep of such Servers, and is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because the fee will be applied to all Market
Makers that request an extra CMI CAS Server.

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

    C2 does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, while different fees apply to Market-Maker
Quoting and Order Bandwidth Packets, Market-Makers have different
obligations and different circumstances (as described in the
``Statutory Basis'' section above). Additionally, the proposed change
is intended to encourage Market Makers to quote more, which provides
more trading opportunities for all market participants. The Exchange
does not believe that the proposed allotment of one CMI CAS Server for
every equivalent 25 Market Maker Bandwidth Packets that a TPH holds
(plus one shared backup) and the proposed fee of $2,000 for each extra
CMI CAS Server that a TPH requests will cause an unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because while such allotment and fee will only
be applied to Market Makers accessing CBOE Command via a CMI
connection, Market Makers have different obligations and different
circumstances (as described in the ``Statutory Basis'' section above)
and because market participants that do not quote would not need
additional CASs.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impose
any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it only
applies to trading on the Exchange. Additionally the Exchange does not
believe such proposed bandwidth scale, CAS allotment and fee will cause
an unnecessary burden on intermarket competition because different
exchanges have different systemic setups for connection to such
exchanges and are likely not comparable or competitive. Should the
proposed change make C2 a more attractive trading venue for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants may elect to
become market participants at C2.

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

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

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) of the Act \7\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \8\
thereunder. 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 will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-C2-2016-016 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-C2-2016-016. 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-C2-2016-016, and should be submitted on or before
September 6, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19313 Filed 8-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 28292]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12816]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-80-000]

Kansas Corporation Commission v. ITC Great Plains, LLC; Notice of
Complaint

    Take notice that on June 11, 2019, pursuant to sections 206, 306
and 309 of the Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e and 825h and Rule
206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Kansas Corporation Commission
(KCC or Complainant) filed a formal complaint against ITC Great Plains,
LLC (Respondent) asserting that KCC's rates are unjust and unreasonable
as a result of Respondent's use of an excessive 100 basis point
incentive adder to calculate its return on equity, all as more fully
explained in the complaint.
    KCC certifies that copies of the Complaint were served on the
contacts for ITC Great Plains, LLC as listed on the Commission's list
of Corporate Officials.
    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 and 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. The Respondents'
answers and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondents' answers, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submissions 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 website 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>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 1, 2019.

    Dated: June 12, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12816 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44151-44155]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18374]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0829; FRL-9354-6]

Titanium Dioxide; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of titanium dioxide (CAS Reg. No. 13463-67-
7) when used as an inert ingredient (Ultraviolet-stabilizer) (UV), at
no more than 5% in pesticide formulations containing the active
ingredient napropamide, used in or on growing crops. United Phosphorus,
Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an amendment to an existing
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of titanium dioxide.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 27, 2012. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 25, 2012,
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-2011-0829, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the OPP Docket in the Environmental
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), located in EPA West, 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: David Lieu, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; 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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action.
Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected.
The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have
been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this
action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

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

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/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-2011-0829 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
September 25, 2012. 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 that does not contain any 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 a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0829, 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 Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statue.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: 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.htm.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69692) (FRL-
9325-1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 1E7918) by
United Phosphorus, Inc., 630 Freedom Business Center, Suite 402, King
of Prussia, PA 19406. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1195 be
amended by modifying an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance
for residues of titanium dioxide (CAS Reg. No. 13463-67-7) when used as
an inert ingredient, UV-stabilizer, at no more than 5% in pesticide
formulations containing the active ingredient napropamide. That notice
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by United Phosphorus,
Inc., the petitioner, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the 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. * * *''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), 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 titanium dioxide including
exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with titanium dioxide
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the

sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused by titanium dioxide as well as
the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-
adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in
this unit.
    A substantial proportion of the toxicity data provided in this unit
has been taken from comprehensive reviews and publications from The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health
Organization (WHO) and National Cancer Institute (NCI). The titanium
dioxide acute toxicity studies show low toxicity near limit doses.
Titanium dioxide is also not a skin sensitizer. A 28-day lung
instillation studies demonstrated slight fibrogenic effects comparable
to that of a nuisance dust. A 90-day lung instillation study showed
statistically significant signs of inflammation immediately after
exposure but they were absent after 1-month. Many subchronic and
chronic oral toxicity studies were performed on different species
including rats, mice, dogs, cats, rabbits and guinea pigs. The doses
ranged up to 100,000 parts per million (ppm) (5,000 milligrams/
kilograms/day (mg/kg/day)) with study durations up to 2 years. None of
these studies showed mortality or adverse toxicological effects caused
by titanium dioxide. No reproductive or developmental studies were
available for review in the toxicity database. Mutagenicity studies
including sister chromatid exchange assays, in vitro micronucleus
assays, comet assays, reverse mutation tests and chromosome aberration
test produced mixed results but overall these tests showed that
titanium dioxide is not mutagenic. Titanium dioxide is not carcinogenic
via the oral, intraperitoneal or subcutaneous routes of exposure in
rats or mice; however, there is concern via the inhalation route. In
inhalation studies, tumors present in the lungs are thought to have
been a localized fibrogenic effect caused by overloading of the lungs
with high concentrations of titanium dioxide particles over a prolonged
period of time. The concentrations used in these studies are near limit
dose levels. Actual environmentally anticipated exposures of titanium
dioxide based on the use patterns of products that would contain
titanium dioxide are orders of magnitude less than that allowed by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Permissible
Exposure Limit (PEL). Specific information on the studies received and
the nature of the adverse effects caused by titanium dioxide can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document ``Titanium Dioxide
(TiO2). Risk Assessment to Support Proposed Amendment to
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When used as an Inert
Ingredient in Pesticide Formulations under 40 CFR 180.1195,'' in docket
ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0829.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    The available toxicity studies on titanium dioxide via oral route
of exposure clearly demonstrate lack of toxicity. The several studies
in mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits and other species of varying
durations do not indicate toxicity at very high doses (e.g., 50,000 ppm
or 2,500 mg/kg/day dietary exposure for 2 years in rats). No end point
of concern via oral route of exposure has been identified in the
available database. Therefore, dietary exposure was not estimated. This
conclusion is in agreement with the conclusion of the WHO Committee on
Food Coloring Materials that no Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) need be
set for the use of titanium dioxide based on the range of acute, sub-
acute and chronic toxicity assays, all showing low mammalian toxicity.
Similarly, no significant toxicity of titanium dioxide is expected via
the dermal route of exposure. The available inhalation studies indicate
that the primary toxicity of titanium dioxide is due to deposition of
the inhaled particles and also suggest equivocal evidence of
carcinogenicity due to prolonged exposure to titanium dioxide
particles. No direct exposure to titanium dioxide particles is expected
in pesticide napropamide formulations (less than 5% in formulations).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses and drinking water. In
evaluating dietary exposure to titanium dioxide, EPA considered
exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from titanium dioxide in food
as follows:
    An exposure assessment for titanium dioxide was not conducted
because no endpoint of concern was identified in the database.
    2. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). Based
on the use pattern provided by the registrant and use limitations/
restrictions there are no residential uses and thus no residential
exposures are expected.
    3. 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 titanium dioxide to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and titanium dioxide does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
titanium dioxide 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 Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    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.
    There were no significant hazards identified in the available data
at levels at or below the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. Thus, due to
its low potential hazard and the lack of a hazard endpoint, it was
determined that a quantitative risk assessment using safety factors
applied to a point of departure protective of an identified hazard
endpoint is not appropriate for titanium dioxide. For the same reasons
that a quantitative risk assessment based on a safety factor approach
is not appropriate for titanium dioxide, an FQPA SF is not

needed to protect the safety of infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Titanium dioxide has two exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance: pesticide formulations applied to growing crops, 40 CFR
180.920; and pesticide formulations applied to animals, 40 CFR 180.930.
Titanium dioxide is also approved for use as a colorant in food (21 CFR
73.575), in drugs (21 CFR 73.1575), and in cosmetics (21 CFR 73.2575;
21 CFR 73.3126). There has also been a previous exemption from
requirement of a tolerance for residues in or on growing crops, when
used as an inert ingredient (UV protectant) in microencapsulated
formulations of the insecticide lambda-cyhalothrin at no more than 3.0%
by weight or the formulations (40 CFR 180.1195). There was also no
aggregate risk assessments performed since there was no single
exposure, dietary or drinking water endpoints of concern.
    Taking into consideration all available information on titanium
dioxide, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm to any population subgroup, including infants and children,
will result from aggregate exposure to titanium dioxide under
reasonable foreseeable circumstances. Therefore, the establishment of
an exemption from tolerance under 40 CFR 180.1195 for residues of
titanium dioxide when used as an inert ingredient (UV stabilizer) in
pesticide formulations of napropamide at no more than 5% of the product
formulation is considered safe under FFDCA section 408.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

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 Nation 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 titanium dioxide.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.1195 for titanium dioxide (CAS Reg.
No.13463-67-7) when used as an inert ingredient (UV-stabilizer) at no
more than 5% in pesticide formulations containing the active ingredient
napropamide in pesticide formulations.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes 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 final rule has
been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule
is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain
any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under 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 final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of 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 final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 18, 2012.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting 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. Section 180.1195 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  180.1195  Titanium dioxide.

    Titanium dioxide (CAS Reg. No. 13463-67-7) is exempted from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues in or on growing crops, when
used as an inert ingredient (UV protectant) in microencapsulated
formulations of the insecticide lambda cyhalothrin at no more than 3.0%
by weight of the formulation and as an inert ingredient (UV-stabilizer)
at no more than 5% in pesticide formulations containing the active
ingredient napropamide.

[FR Doc. 2012-18374 Filed 7-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


AGENDA

The Hartz Mountain Corporation

Product-Specific Mitigation Meeting

Tuesday, May 11, 2010, at 10:00 am

Room 7100

I.	Introductions

II.	Hartz Presentation

III.	Agency Response

IV.	Questions and Answers

V.	Next Steps


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50885-50887]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20657]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75716; File No. SR-BX-2015-052)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Verifiable Disruption or Malfunction of Exchange Systems

August 17, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on August 13, 2015, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``BX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by 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

    BX is filing with the Commission a proposal to amend Chapter V,
Section 6 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions
including Obvious Errors) of the rules of the BX Options Market (``BX
Options'') related to a verifiable disruption or malfunction of
Exchange systems.
    The text of the amended Exchange rule is set forth immediately
below.
    Proposed new language is italicized and proposed deleted language
is [bracketed].

NASDAQ OMX BX Rules

Options Rules

* * * * *

Chapter V Regulation of Trading on BX Options

* * * * *

Sec. 6 Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions Including
Obvious Errors

    The Exchange may nullify a transaction or adjust the execution
price of a transaction in accordance with this Rule. However, the
determination as to whether a trade was executed at an erroneous price
may be made by mutual agreement of the affected parties to a particular
transaction. A trade may be nullified or adjusted on the terms that all
parties to a particular transaction agree, provided, however, that such
agreement to nullify or adjust must be conveyed to the Exchange in a
manner prescribed by the Exchange prior to 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time on
the first trading day following the execution. It is considered conduct
inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for any
Participant to use the mutual adjustment process to circumvent any
applicable Exchange rule, the Act or any of the rules and regulations
thereunder.
    (a)-(j) No Change.
    (k) Verifiable Disruption or Malfunction of Exchange Systems.
Parties to a trade may have a trade nullified or its price adjusted if
it resulted from a verifiable disruption or malfunction of Exchange
execution, dissemination, or communication systems that caused a quote/
order to trade in excess of its disseminated size (e.g. a quote/order
that is frozen, because of an Exchange system error, and repeatedly
traded). Parties to a trade may have a trade nullified or its price
adjusted if it resulted from a verifiable disruption or malfunction of
an Exchange dissemination or communication system that prevented a
member from updating or canceling a quote/order for which the member is
responsible where there is Exchange documentation providing that the
member sought to update or cancel the quote/order.
    ([k]l) Appeals. A party to a transaction affected by a decision
made under this section may appeal that decision to the Exchange Review
Council. An appeal must be made in writing, and must be received by BX
within thirty (30) minutes after the person making the appeal is given
the notification of the determination being appealed. The Exchange
Review Council may review any decision appealed, including whether a
complaint was timely, whether an Obvious Error or Catastrophic Error
occurred, whether the correct Theoretical Price was used, and whether
an adjustment was made at the correct price.
* * * * *

    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://nasdaqomxbx.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 seeking to amend its rules related to obvious
errors. Specifically, the Exchange is seeking to amend Chapter V,
Section 6 (Nullification and Adjustment of Options Transactions
including Obvious Errors) of the rules of BX Options related to a
verifiable disruption or malfunction of Exchange systems.
    Similar to NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') Rule 1092(k), proposed BX
Options Chapter V, Section 6(k) would indicate that parties to a trade
may have a trade nullified or its price adjusted if it resulted from a
verifiable disruption or malfunction of Exchange execution,
dissemination, or communication systems that caused a quote/order to
trade in excess of its disseminated size (e.g., a quote/order that is
frozen, because of an Exchange system error, and repeatedly traded).\3\
Parties to a trade may have a trade nullified or its price adjusted if
it resulted from a verifiable disruption or malfunction of an Exchange
dissemination or communication system that prevented a member from
updating or canceling a quote/order for which the member is responsible
where there is Exchange documentation providing that the member sought
to update or cancel the quote/order. The Exchange notes that the
proposed BX Options Chapter V, Section 6(k) language is identical to
that of Phlx Rule 1092(k). Per BX Options Chapter V, Section 6,
transactions that qualify for price adjustment will be adjusted to
Theoretical Price, as defined in paragraph (b) of Section 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ There is no reference to open outcry as BX Options is all-
electronic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to provide the
flexibility and authority provided for in the proposed rule so as not
to limit the Exchange's ability to plan for and respond to unforeseen
systems problems or malfunctions. The proposed rule change would
provide the Exchange with the same authority that Phlx and other
exchanges have to nullify or adjust trades in the event of a
``verifiable disruption or malfunction'' in the use or operation of its
systems. \4\ For this reason, the Exchange believes that, in the
interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market and for the
protection of investors, authority to nullify or adjust trades in these
circumstances, consistent with the authority on other exchanges, is
warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Phlx Rule 1092(k), Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') Rule 6.25.05, CBOE C2 (``C2'') Rule 6.15.06, and NYSE
Arca, Inc. (``Arca'') Rule 6.89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of housekeeping, the Exchange proposes to renumber current
Section 6(k) of BX Options Chapter V to Section 6(l). There are no
other changes to Section 6(l), which deals with appeals regarding
decisions pursuant to BX Options Chapter V, Section 6.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\5\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \6\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, 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.
Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) requirement that the rules of an
exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change
would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market and national market system and promote a fair and orderly
market because it would provide authority for the Exchange to nullify
or adjust trades that may have resulted from a verifiable systems
disruption or malfunction. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate
to provide the flexibility and authority provided for in the proposed
rule so as not to limit the Exchange's ability to plan for and respond
to unforeseen systems problems or malfunctions that may result in harm
to the public. Allowing for the nullification or modification of
transactions that result from verifiable disruptions and/or
malfunctions of the Exchange's systems will offer market participants
on BX Options a level of relief presently not available. The Exchange
notes that the proposed rule change is the same as the equivalent Phlx
rule and substantially similar to the equivalent CBOE, C2, and Arca
rules.

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. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change is pro-competitive because it
will align the BX Option rules with the rules of other markets,
including Phlx, CBOE, C2, and Arca. By adopting the proposed rule, the
Exchange will be in a position to treat transactions that are a result
of a verifiable systems issue or malfunction in a manner similar to
other exchanges.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2015-052 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-BX-2015-052. 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-BX-2015-052, and should be
submitted on or before September 11, 2015.

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

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

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20657 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P