[Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 223)]
[Notices]
[Page 65323-65324]
[DOCID:fr20no07-57]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP07-405-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assement for the Proposed Phase 3 Storage Expansion
Project

November 13, 2007.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) on the
natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas) in the above-referenced docket. Texas Gas proposes to
increase the storage capacity of its existing Midland Storage Field by
constructing facilities in Hanson and Muhlenberg Counties, Kentucky.
    The EA was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The staff concludes that approval of
the proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the proposed Phase 3 Storage Expansion
Project, which includes the following wells, pipeline facilities, and
expansion/modifications of existing compressor stations:

Midland Gas Storage Field

     Seven new injection/withdrawal wells;
     Six new well pads;
     80-foot-tall radio tower on an 8-foot by 8-foot concrete
pad and 6-foot by 6-foot shelter;

Pipeline Facilities

     10.5 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline from Texas Gas'
Hanson Compressor Station to its Midland III Compressor Station;
     Construct 2,900 feet of 16-inch-diameter pipeline
extending Texas Gas existing E-9 Lateral pipeline;
     Construct 8 well laterals ranging from 8 to 12 inches in
diameter and 450 to 3,000 feet in length;

Midland III Compressor Station

     A new turbine/compressor building;
     A new 5,488 horsepower turbine-driven compressor,
including ancillary equipment;
     Control system modifications to allow two existing 1,250-
horsepower electric-driven compressors to operate at 1,500-horsepower;
     Retirement of two 2,000-horsepower reciprocating
compressor units
     Piping modifications and appurtenant facilities;

Slaughters Compressor Station

     Modification of the existing 12,090-horsepower turbine-
driven compressor for a new suction and discharge pressure; The purpose
of the proposed Phase 3 Storage Expansion Project is to expand the
daily withdrawal and seasonal storage capability of the Midland Gas
Storage Field located in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky.
    The EA has been placed in the public files of the FERC. A limited
number of copies of the EA are available for distribution and public
inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Copies of the EA have been mailed to pertinent agencies, libraries
and newspapers, parties to this proceeding, and those who have
expressed an interest in this project by returning the July 23, 2007,
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed Texas Gas Storage Expansion Project Phase 3 and Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues mailer, as directed.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. To ensure
consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is
important that we receive your comments before the date specified
below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your
comments are received in time and properly recorded:
     Send an original and two copies of your comments to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
     Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the
Gas Branch 1, PJ-11.1;
     Reference Docket No. CP07-405-000; and
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before December 14, 2007.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any
comments, interventions, or protests to this proceeding. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions of the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to the

User's guide. Before you can file comments you will need to create a
free account, which can be created by clicking on ``Login to File'' and
then ``New User Account.'' You will be asked to select the type of
filing you are making. This filing is considered a ``Comment on
Filing.''
    Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to
make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to
become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Only intervenors have the right to seek
rehearing of the Commission's decision. Anyone may intervene in this
proceeding based on this EA. You must file your request to intervene as
specified above.\1\ You do not need intervenor status to have your
comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion of filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC or on the
FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link.

Click on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number
field (i.e., CP07-405). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date
range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet website
also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notifications of these filings, document summaries and direct links to
the documents. Go to the eSubscription link on the FERC Internet
website.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-22624 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 32158]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14751]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83595; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4702(b)(14) To Establish a Price
Improvement Only Variation on the Midpoint Extended Life Order

July 5, 2018.
    On May 4, 2018, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish a price improvement only variation on
the Midpoint Extended Life Order. The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on May 23, 2018.\3\ The
Commission has received one comment letter on the proposal.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83272 (May 17,
2018), 83 FR 23978.
    \4\ See Letter to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Sal Arnuk and Joe Saluzzi, Partners, Co-Founders, and Co-Heads of
Equity Trading, Themis Trading LLC, dated June 12, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is July 7, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is
appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on
the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
Exchange's proposal, the comment received, and any response to the
comment by the Exchange.
    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ and for
the reasons stated above, the Commission designates August 21, 2018, as
the date by which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or
institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed
rule change (File No. SR-NASDAQ-2018-038).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-14751 Filed 7-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 79 (Monday, April 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21662-21663]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9544]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2009-0043]

Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
contained in its Regulation on Access to Employee Exposure and Medical
Records (29 CFR 1910.1020).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked or received) by June 25,
2010.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2009-0043,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, (OSHA's TTY number is (877) 889-
5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service)
are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's
normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2009-
0043). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled ``Supplementary Information.''
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may contact Todd Owen at the
address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa N. Hill, Directorate of
Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609,
200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202)
693-2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and cost)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of the 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C.
651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as
necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for
developing information regarding the causes and prevention of
occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The
Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden
upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to
reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of
efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Under the authority granted by the Act, OSHA published a health
regulation governing access to worker exposure monitoring data and
medical records. This regulation does not require employers to collect
any information or to establish any new systems of records. Rather, it
requires that employers provide workers, their designated
representatives, and OSHA with access to worker exposure monitoring and
medical records, and any analyses resulting from these records that
employers must maintain under OSHA's toxic chemical and harmful
physical agent standards. In this regard, the regulation specifies
requirements for record access, record retention, worker information,
trade secret management, and record transfer. Accordingly, the Agency
attributes the burden hours and costs associated with exposure
monitoring and measurement, medical surveillance, and the other
activities required to generate the data governed by the regulation to
the health standards that specify these activities; therefore, OSHA did
not include these burden hours and costs in the ICR.
    Access to exposure and medical information enables workers and
their designated representatives to become directly involved in
identifying and controlling occupational health hazards, as well as
managing and preventing occupationally-related health impairment and
disease. Providing the Agency with access to the records permits it to
ascertain whether or not employers are complying with the regulation,
as well as the recordkeeping requirements of its other health
standards; therefore, OSHA access provides additional assurance that
workers and their designated representative are able to obtain the data
they need to conduct their analyses.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions to
protect workers, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirement, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for

example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the collection
of information requirements specified by the Regulation on Access to
Employee Exposure and Medical Records (29 CFR 1910.1020). The Agency is
requesting to decrease its current burden hour total from 720,187 hours
to 664,993, a total decrease of 55,194 hours. This decrease is the
result of the Agency using the latest NAICS codes covered by the
Regulation to update the number of establishments. The number of
establishments decreased from 5,108,244 to 4,790,859. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice, and will
include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of
these information collection requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records (29 CFR
1910.1020).
    OMB Control Number: 1218-0065.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Federal government;
State, local, or tribal governments.
    Number of Respondents: 690,591.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from five minutes (.08 hour) for
employers to provide OSHA with access to records to 10 minutes (.17
hour) to maintain worker records.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 664,993 hours.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this notice as follows: (1)
Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2009-0043). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007
(72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on April 20, 2010.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2010-9544 Filed 4-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register: August 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 150)]
[Notices]
[Page 47311-47312]
[DOCID:fr05au10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-0489]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of open teleconference meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) will
meet by teleconference to discuss items related to safety of operations
and other matters affecting the oil and gas offshore industry. This
meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The teleconference meeting will take place on Wednesday,
September 29, 2010, from 11 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EST. This meeting may
close early if all business is finished. Written material and requests
to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before
September 10, 2010. Requests to have a copy of your material
distributed to each member of the committee should reach the Coast
Guard on or before September 10, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The Committee will meet, via telephone conference, on
September 29, 2010. Public participation is welcome and members of the
public wishing to participate may contact Commander P.W. Clark at 202-
372-1410 for call-in information, or they may participate in person by
coming to Room 5-1224, U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Building, 2100
Second Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593. As there are a limited number
of teleconference lines, public participation will be on a first come
basis. Written comments should be sent to Commander P.W. Clark,
Designated Federal Officer of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5222), 2100 Second
Street SW. Stop 7126, Washington, DC 20593-0001; or by fax to 202-372
1926, at least 10 days prior to the meeting. This notice will be
available in our online docket, USCG-2010-0489, at http://
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander P.W. Clark, Designated
Federal Officer of NOSAC, or Mr. Kevin Pekarek, Assistant Designated
Federal Officer, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
NOSAC provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on

safety and other concerns affecting the offshore oil and gas industry
and assists the Coast Guard in formulating U.S. positions for
discussion and presentation at the International Maritime Organization
(IMO).

Agenda of Meeting

    The agenda for the September 29, 2010, Committee meeting is as
follows:
    (1) Roll call of committee members and the public participating in
the teleconference.
    (2) Approval of minutes from the July 1, 2010, meeting.
Consideration and possible action on the Offshore Supply Vessels
(OSV's) subcommittee's Report and submission to the committee, which
will include a paper for IMO's Bulk Liquids and Gases (BLG) workgroup
and recommendations regarding OSV's < 100 Gross Tons (GT) and
Resolution A.673(16) The Guidelines for the Transport and Handling of
Limited Amounts of Hazardous and Noxious Liquid Substances in Bulk on
Offshore Support Vessels. Once the committee finalizes its report, it
will be posted and available to the public within 30 days at the
fido.gov Web site. Use ``code 68'' to identify NOSAC when accessing
this material.
    (1) Brief Updates to the committee on progress to date from ongoing
subcommittees as follows:
    (a) Diving Subcommittee.
    (b) Marine Portable Quarters Subcommittee.
    (5) Other matters submitted for the committee's attention.
    (6) Period for Public Comment.

Procedural

    This meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting
may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion,
members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting
concerning the matters being discussed. If you would like to make an
oral presentation during the teleconference, please notify the DFO no
later than September 10, 2010. Written material for distribution to
Committee members should reach the Coast Guard no later than September
10, 2010.

Minutes

    Minutes from the meeting will be available for the public review
and copying 30 days following the teleconference meeting and can be
accessed from the fido.gov Web site. Use ``code 68'' to identify NOSAC
when accessing this material.

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Mr. Kevin Pekarek at<PHONE_NUMBER> as soon as possible.

    Dated: July 27, 2010.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2010-19324 Filed 8-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36447-36450]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12894]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89038; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2020-52]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify the NYSE
Arca Options Fee Schedule

June 10, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 1, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule
(``Fee Schedule'') to waive certain Floor-based fixed fees for the
month of June 2020. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective June 1, 2020. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this filing is to modify the Fee Schedule to waive
certain Floor-based fixed fees for June 2020 for market participants
that have been unable to resume their Floor operations to a certain
capacity level, as discussed below. The Exchange proposes to implement
the fee change effective June 1, 2020.
    On March 18, 2020, the Exchange announced that it would temporarily
close the Trading Floor, effective Monday, March 23, 2020, as a
precautionary measure to prevent the potential spread of COVID-19.
Following the temporary closure of the Trading Floor, the Exchange
waived certain Floor-based fixed fees for April and May 2020 (the ``fee
waiver'').\4\ Although the Trading Floor partially reopened on May 4,
2020 and Floor-based open outcry activity is supported, certain
participants have been unable to resume pre-Floor closure levels of
operations. Thus, the Exchange proposes to extend the fee waiver
through June 2020, but only for Floor Broker firms that are unable to
operate at more than 50% of their March 2020 on-Floor staffing levels
and for Market Maker firms that have vacant or ``unmanned'' Podia for
the entire month due to COVID-19 related considerations (the
``Qualifying Firms'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 88596 (April 8,
2020), 85 FR 20796 (April 14, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-29); 88812
(May 5, 2020), 85 FR 27787 (May 11, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-38). See
also Fee Schedule, NYSE Arca OPTIONS: FLOOR and EQUIPMENT and CO-
LOCATION FEES.
    \5\ See proposed Fee Schedule, NYSE Arca OPTIONS: FLOOR and
EQUIPMENT and CO-LOCATION FEES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the proposed fee waiver covers the following fixed
fees for Qualifying Firms, which relate directly to Floor operations,
are charged only to Floor participants and do not apply to participants
that conduct business off-Floor:
     Floor Booths;
     Market Maker Podia;
     Options Floor Access;
     Wire Services; and
     ISP Connection.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like the previous fee waiver, the proposed fee change is designed
to reduce monthly costs for Qualifying Firms whose operations continue
to be disrupted despite the fact that the Trading Floor has partially
reopened. In reducing this monthly financial burden, the proposed
change would allow Qualifying Firms to reallocate funds to assist with
the cost of shifting and maintaining their prior fully-staffed on-Floor
operations to off-Floor and recoup losses as a result of the
unanticipated Floor closure and now partial reopening. Absent this
change, such participants may experience an unexpected increase in the
cost of doing business on the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange will refund participants of the Floor Broker
Prepayment Program for any prepaid June 2020 fees that are waived.
See proposed Fee Schedule, FLOOR BROKER FIXED COST PREPAYMENT
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (the ``FB Prepay Program'') (providing that ``the
Exchange will refund certain of the prepaid Eligible Fixed costs
that were waived for June 2020, per NYSE Arca OPTIONS: FLOOR and
EQUIPMENT and CO-LOCATION FEES'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that all Qualifying Firms would benefit from
this proposed fee change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and (5) of the Act,\9\ in particular,
because it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and other persons
using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between
customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The
Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over
regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services
in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, the Commission
highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and
SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the
market system ``has been remarkably successful in promoting market
competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors
and listed companies.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (S7-10-04) (``Reg NMS
Adopting Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for
order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding
index-based options, no single exchange has more than 16% of the market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options
trades.\11\ Therefore, currently no exchange possesses significant
pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options
order flow. More specifically, in January 2020, the Exchange had less
than 10% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity &
ETF options trades.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The OCC publishes options and futures volume in a variety
of formats, including daily and monthly volume by exchange,
available here: https://www.theocc.com/market-data/volume/default.jsp.
    \12\ Based on OCC data, see id., in 2019, the Exchange's market
share in equity-based options was 9.57% for the month of January
2019 and 9.59% for the month of January 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed fee change is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would reduce monthly costs for Qualifying
Firms whose operations have been disrupted despite the fact that the
Trading Floor has partially reopened because of the social distancing
requirements and/or other health concerns related to resuming operation
on the Floor. In reducing this monthly financial burden, the proposed
change would allow affected participants to reallocate funds to assist
with the cost of shifting and maintaining their prior fully-staffed on-
Floor operations to off-Floor and recoup losses as a result of the
partial reopening of the Floor. Absent this change, such participants
may experience an

unexpected increase in the cost of doing business on the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that all Qualifying Firms would benefit from this
proposed fee change.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is an equitable
allocation of its fees and credits as it merely continues the previous
fee waiver, which affects fees charged only to Floor participants and
do not apply to participants that conduct business off-Floor. The
Exchange believes it is an equitable allocation of fees and credits to
extend this fee waiver to Qualifying Firms because such firms have
either less than half of their Floor staff (March 2020) levels or have
vacant podia--and this reduction in physical capacity on the Floor
impacts the speed, volume and efficiency with which these firms can
operate, which is to their detriment.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly
discriminatory because the proposed continuation of the fee waiver
would affect all similarly-situated market participants on an equal and
non-discriminatory basis.
    Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant
competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement
regarding the burden on competition.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed changes
would encourage the continued participation of Qualifying Firms,
thereby promoting market depth, price discovery and transparency and
enhancing order execution opportunities for all market participants. As
a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed change furthers the
Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering integrated
competition among orders, which promotes ``more efficient pricing of
individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Reg NMS Adopting Release, supra note 10, at 37499.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intramarket Competition. The proposed change, which continues the
fee waiver in place when the Floor was temporarily closed but only for
Qualifying Firms, is designed to reduce monthly costs for those Floor
participants whose operations continue to be impacted despite the fact
that the Trading Floor has partially reopened. In reducing this monthly
financial burden, the proposed change would allow affected participants
to reallocate funds to assist with the cost of shifting and maintaining
their previously on-Floor operations to off-Floor. Absent this change,
such Qualifying Firms may experience an unintended increase in the cost
of doing business on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the
proposed waiver of fees for Qualifying Firms would not impose a
disparate burden on competition among market participants on the
Exchange because off-Floor market participants are not subject to these
Floor-based fixed fees and Floor-based firms that are not subject to
the extent of staffing shortfalls as the Qualifying Firms--i.e., have
at least 50% of their March 2020 staffing levels on the Floor and/or
have no vacant Podia during June 2020, do not face the same operational
disruption and potential financial impact during the partial reopening
of the Floor.
    Intermarket Competition. The Exchange operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one
of the 16 competing option exchanges if they deem fee levels at a
particular venue to be excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange
must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other
exchanges and to attract order flow to the Exchange. Based on publicly-
available information, and excluding index-based options, no single
exchange currently has more than 16% of the market share of executed
volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades.\14\ Therefore,
currently no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the
execution of multiply-listed equity & ETF options order flow. More
specifically, in January 2020, the Exchange had less than 10% market
share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity & ETF options
trades.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 11.
    \15\ Based on OCC data, supra note 12, the Exchange's market
share in equity-based options was 9.57% for the month of January
2019 and 9.59% for the month of January, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because it waives fees for Qualifying Firms and
is designed to reduce monthly costs for Floor participants whose
operations continue to be disrupted despite the fact that the Trading
Floor has partially reopened. In reducing this monthly financial
burden, the proposed change would allow affected participants to
reallocate funds to assist with the cost of shifting and maintaining
their prior fully-staffed on-Floor operations to off-Floor. Absent this
change, Qualifying Firms may experience an unintended increase in the
cost of doing business on the Exchange, which would make the Exchange a
less competitive venue on which to trade as compared to other options
exchanges.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \16\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \17\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \18\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-NYSEArca-2020-52 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-NYSEArca-2020-52. This

file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2020-52 and should be submitted
on or before July 7, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-12894 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27149-27154]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12346]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263; FRL-9961-80]

Isofetamid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
isofetamid in or on multiple commodities which are identified and
discussed later in this document. ISK Biosciences Corporation requested
these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA). The regulation also removes the existing time-limited
tolerances for residues on ``bushberry subgroup 13-07B'' and
``caneberry subgroup 13-07A'' because they are no longer needed as a
result of this action.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 14, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 14, 2017,
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-2016-0263, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263 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
August 14, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0263, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about

dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of February 7, 2017 (82 FR 9555) (FRL-9956-
86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6F8457) by ISK Biosciences Corporation, 7470 Auburn Rd., Suite A,
Concord, OH 44077. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.681 be
amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the fungicide
isofetamid, N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-[2-methyl-4-(1-methylethoxy)phenyl]-2-
oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide, in or on caneberry subgroup
13-07A at 3.0 parts per million (ppm); apple, wet pomace, at 2.0 ppm;
bushberry, subgroup 13-07B at 6.0 ppm; cattle, fat at 0.01 ppm; cattle,
meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; cherry subgroup 12-12A at 5.0 ppm; fruit,
pome, group 11-10 at 0.6 ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except grape,
subgroup 13-7E at 9.0 ppm; goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; goat, meat byproducts
at 0.01 ppm; horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; horse, meat byproducts at 0.01
ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, except
cowpea and field pea at 0.05 ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled,
subgroup 6B, except cowpea at 0.04 ppm; peach subgroup 12-12B at 3.0
ppm; plum, prune, dried at 3.5 ppm; plum subgroup 12-12C at 0.8 ppm;
sheep, fat at 0.01 ppm; sheep, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; and
vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A at 1.5 ppm. That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by ISK Biosciences
Corporation, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no comments received in response to the
notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
revised some of the proposed tolerances; determined that tolerances for
residues in livestock commodities are not required; and corrected some
of the commodity definitions. The reason for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . .
. .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for isofetamid including exposure
resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with isofetamid follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. The toxicology database is complete for isofetamid. In
repeated dose studies, the liver was the primary target organ in the
rat, mouse, and dog, as indicated by increased liver weights, changes
in the clinical chemistry values, and liver hypertrophy. A second
target organ was the thyroid in the rat and dog, as indicated by
changes in thyroid weights and histopathology. Adrenal weight changes
were observed in the subchronic rat and dog studies. In the rat and
dog, the dose levels where toxicity was observed were similar or higher
in the chronic studies compared with the respective subchronic studies,
showing an absence of progression of liver toxicity with time. There
was no evidence of carcinogenicity in the rat or mouse cancer studies;
the mutagenicity battery was negative. There are no genotoxicity,
neurotoxicity, or immunotoxicity concerns observed in the available
toxicity studies. Developmental toxicity was not observed in the rat or
rabbit, and offspring effects such as decreased body weight were seen
only in the presence of parental toxicity in the multi-generation rat
study. Isofetamid is classified as ``Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to
Humans'' based on the absence of increased tumor incidence in
acceptable/guideline carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice.
Isofetamid is not acutely toxic; it is classified as Toxicity Category
III for acute oral and dermal exposure, and Toxicity Category IV for
inhalation exposure. Furthermore, it is not irritating to the eye or
skin, and it is not a dermal sensitizer.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by isofetamid as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Isofetamid. Aggregate Human Health Risk
Assessment for the Proposed New Agricultural Uses on Bushberry,
Subgroup 13-07B; Caneberry, Subgroup 13-07A; Cherry, Subgroup 12-12A;
Dried Shelled Pea and Bean, Except Soybean, Subgroup 6C; Edible-Podded
Legume Vegetables, Subgroup 6A; Peach, Subgroup 12-12B; Plum, Subgroup
12-12C; Pome Fruit, Group 11-10; Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Except
Grape, Subgroup 13-07E; Succulent Shelled Pea and Bean, Subgroup 6B; as
well as Livestock Commodities; in Addition to Uses on Ornamental Plants
(including Residential Use Sites). pages 12-18 in docket ID number EPA-
HQ-OPP-2016-0263.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some

degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the
probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a
lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in
risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment
process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for isofetamid used for
human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule
published in the Federal Register of July 30, 2015 (80 FR 45440) (FRL-
9923-86).

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to isofetamid, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing isofetamid tolerances in 40 CFR
180.681. EPA assessed dietary exposures from isofetamid in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure. No such effects were
identified in the toxicological studies for isofetamid; therefore, a
quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. An unrefined chronic (food and drinking
water) dietary assessment was conducted for all registered and proposed
food uses of isofetamid using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model
software with the Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCID) Version
3.16. This software uses 2003-2008 food consumption data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). The chronic
dietary (food and drinking water) exposure assessment for isofetamid
incorporated existing tolerance-level residues, Agency-recommended
tolerance-level residues for proposed tolerances, DEEM default
processing factors, and 100 PCT (percent crop treated). Some tolerance
levels were adjusted to include residues of the metabolite, GPTC (a
residue of concern for risk assessment). DEEM default processing
factors were used for dried apples, apple juice, dried pear, cherry
juice, dried apricot, dried peach, plum, prune juice, cranberry juice,
and grape juice. The EDWC of 110 microgram/Liter ([micro]g/L) was
incorporated directly into the dietary assessment.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that isofetamid does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for isofetamid. Tolerance level residues and/or 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for isofetamid in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of isofetamid. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.
    Based on the Pesticide Flooded Application Model and the Pesticide
Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) the estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) of isofetamid for chronic exposures for non-
cancer assessments are estimated to be 110 parts per billion (ppb) for
surface water and 43 ppb for ground water.
    Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly
entered into the dietary exposure model. For chronic dietary risk
assessment, the water concentration value of 110 ppb was used to assess
the contribution from drinking water.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Isofetamid is currently registered for the following uses that
could result in residential exposures: Turfgrass including golf
courses, residential lawns, and recreational turfgrass. It is currently
under review for registering use on ornamental plants. The proposed
ornamental use is not intended for homeowner use and therefore a
quantitative residential handler assessment was not conducted.
Additionally, post-application exposures for adults and children are
expected to be negligible. However, the existing turf use may result in
short- and intermediate-term exposures. Residential exposure may occur
by the dermal and incidental oral routes of exposures following the
application of isofetamid on residential turf. However, since dermal
hazard has not been identified for isofetamid, the only exposure
scenario quantitatively assessed is for post-application incidental
oral (for children 1 to <2 years old). These exposures have been
assessed with current policies, which include the Agency's 2012
Residential Standard Operating Procedures (http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/residential-exposure-sop.html) along with policy
changes for body weight assumptions.
    Even though a previous risk assessment identified residential
handler risk estimates for use in aggregate assessment, based on
current policy and that isofetamid products are intended for sale/use
to/by professional applicators, residential handler exposure
assessments for turf are no longer applicable to the isofetamid
aggregate risk assessment. Therefore, the aggregate assessment for this
action only includes a risk contribution from residential post-
application incidental oral exposure for children 1 to <2 years old.
    There is the potential for post-application exposure for
individuals as a result of being in an environment that has been
previously treated with isofetamid such as residential ornamental
lawns. Since dermal hazard has not been identified for isofetamid, a
quantitative assessment for dermal exposure is not necessary and the
only exposure scenarios quantitatively assessed are for children 1 to
<2 years old who may experience short-term incidental oral exposure to
isofetamid from treated turf. Intermediate-term incidental oral post-
application exposures are possible (i.e., from soil ingestion due to
the persistence of isofetamid); however, the short-term incidental oral
exposures are protective of the possible intermediate-term incidental
oral exposures because the POD for both durations is the same. Post-
application inhalation exposure is expected to be negligible for the
proposed residential uses.
    The post-application incidental oral MOE values were calculated
based on the scenario of liquid application of isofetamid to turf.
Post-application risk estimates for all incidental oral scenarios are
not of concern (MOEs range from 5,900 to 4,000,000). The incidental
oral scenarios (i.e., hand-to-mouth and object-to-mouth) should be
considered inter-related and it is likely that they occur interspersed
amongst

each other across time. However, combining these scenarios would be
overly-conservative because of the conservative nature of each
individual assessment. Incidental oral risk estimates are highly
conservative because the short- and intermediate-term incidental oral
POD is based on a 90-day exposure duration which represents daily
exposure for 90 days. Further information regarding EPA standard
assumptions and generic inputs for residential exposures may be found
at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found isofetamid to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and isofetamid does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
isofetamid 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://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There is no evidence of
developmental toxicity or reproductive susceptibility, and there are no
residual uncertainties concerning pre- or post-natal toxicity or
exposure.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
    i. The toxicity database for isofetamid is complete.
    ii. There is no indication that isofetamid is a neurotoxic chemical
and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or
additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that isofetamid results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the 2-generation reproduction
study.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance level residues. EPA made conservative
(protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used
to assess exposure to isofetamid in drinking water. EPA used similarly
conservative assumptions to assess post application exposure of
children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These
assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by
isofetamid.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
isofetamid is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
isofetamid from food and water will utilize 4.0% of the cPAD for
children (1-2 years old), the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
isofetamid is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Isofetamid is
currently registered for uses that could result in short-term
residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to isofetamid.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in an aggregate MOE of 1,600 for
children (1-2 years old). Because EPA's level of concern for isofetamid
is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). An intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however,
isofetamid is not registered for any use patterns that would result in
intermediate-term residential exposure. Intermediate-term risk is
assessed based on intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
dietary exposure. Because there is no intermediate-term residential
exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under
the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as
the POD used to assess intermediate-term risk), no further assessment
of intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic
dietary risk assessment for evaluating intermediate-term risk for
isofetamid.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of
evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity
studies, isofetamid is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to isofetamid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology liquid chromatography with tandem
mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. Multiresidue methods testing data have been
submitted for isofetamid and GPTC. The data indicate that multiresidue
methods are not suitable for analysis of isofetamid and GPTC, so the
multiresidue methods cannot serve as enforcement methods. The
multiresidue data have been forwarded to the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established MRLs for isofetamid. There are no
Canadian, Codex, or Mexican maximum residue limits (MRLs) for
isofetamid in/on the commodities included in this petition.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    All tolerance levels are based upon the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development's (OECD) tolerance calculation procedures.
Thus, the tolerance levels established in this notice for isofetamid
in/on bushberry, subgroup 13-07B; cherry, subgroup 12-12A; plum, prune,
dried; dried shelled pea and bean, except soybean, subgroup 6C; and
succulent shelled pea and bean, subgroup 6B are lower than those
requested by the petitioner. The tolerance levels established in this
notice for caneberry, subgroup 13-07A and fruit, small vine climbing,
except grape, subgroup 13-07E are higher than those requested by the
petitioner based on the OECD calculation procedures.
    Additionally, the Agency has determined that tolerances requested
for residues in livestock commodities are not required. These
tolerances fall under 40 CFR 180.6(a)(3) regarding secondary residues
in livestock commodities, i.e., it is not possible to establish with
certainty whether finite residues will be incurred, but there is no
reasonable expectation of finite residues.
    The following commodity definitions have been corrected: Bushberry
subgroup 13-07B; fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-
07E; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C; and pea
and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of isofetamid,
in or on apple, wet pomace, at 2.0 parts per million (ppm); bushberry
subgroup 13-07B at 5.0 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0 ppm;
cherry subgroup 12-12A at 4.0 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.60
ppm; fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-07E at 10.0
ppm; pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C, at 0.040
ppm; pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B, at 0.030 ppm; peach
subgroup 12-12B at 3.0 ppm; plum, prune, dried at 1.50 ppm; plum
subgroup 12-12C at 0.80 ppm; and vegetable, legume, edible podded,
subgroup 6A at 1.50 ppm. Additionally, the existing time-limited
tolerances are being removed for both Caneberry subgroup 13-07A at 4.0
ppm, and for Bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 5.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 4, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 180.681 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the table in paragraph (a) alphabetically add the following
commodities: ``Apple, wet pomace''; ``Bushberry subgroup 13-07B'';
``Caneberry subgroup 13-07A''; ``Cherry subgroup 12-12A''; ``Fruit,
pome, group 11-10''; ``Fruit, small vine climbing, except grape,
subgroup 13-07E''; ``Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean,
subgroup 6C''; ``Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B'';
``Peach subgroup 12-12B''; ``Plum, Prune, Dried''; ``Plum subgroup 12-
12C''; ``Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A''.
0
b. Paragraph (b) is revised.
    The additions and revision read as follows:

Sec.  180.681   Isofetamid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

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

                                * * * * *
Apple, wet pomace..........................................          2.0
Bushberry subgroup 13-07B..................................          5.0
Caneberry subgroup 13-07A..................................          4.0

                                * * * * *
Cherry subgroup 12-12A.....................................          4.0

                                * * * * *
Fruit, pome, group 11-10...................................         0.60

                                * * * * *
Fruit, small vine climbing, except grape, subgroup 13-07E..         10.0

                                * * * * *
Pea and bean, dried shelled, except soybean, subgroup 6C...        0.040
Pea and bean, succulent shelled, subgroup 6B...............        0.030
Peach subgroup 12-12B......................................          3.0
Plum, Prune, Dried.........................................         1.50
Plum subgroup 12-12C.......................................         0.80

                                * * * * *
Vegetable, legume, edible podded, subgroup 6A..............         1.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. [Reserved]
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-12346 Filed 6-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 189 (Monday, September 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 59992]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23954]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, October
3, 2013 at 10:30 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Stein, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Adjudicatory matters; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 26, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23954 Filed 9-26-13; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P