EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION - COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITION

EPA Registration Division contact: Sidney Jackson<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Pesticide Petition Number: PP# 3E8212

      EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP# 3E8212) from IR-4 Project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State University of NJ, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W, Princeton, NJ 08540 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.361 by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide pendimethalin, [N- (1-ethylpropyl)-3,4-dimethyl-2,6-dinitrobenzenamine], and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of pendimethalin, in or on the raw agricultural commodities berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G at 0.1 ppm parts per million (ppm), fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.1 ppm, fruit, pome, group 11-10 at 0.1 ppm, fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.1 ppm, hops, dried cones at 0.1, onion, bulb subgroup 3-07A at 0.1 ppm, onion, green subgroup 3-07B at 0.2 ppm, sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.1 ppm, and vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.1 ppm.  In addition, the petitioner proposes based upon the establishment of new tolerances above, removal of existing tolerances at 40 CFR 180.361 on fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.1 ppm, fruit, pome, group 11 at 0.1 ppm, fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.1ppm, garlic at 0.1 ppm, leek at 0.20 ppm, onion, bulb at 0.1 ppm, onion, green at 0.20 ppm, onion, welsh at 0.20 ppm, shallot at 0.2, strawberry at 0.10 ppm,  sunflower seed at 0.1 ppm and vegetable, fruiting, group 8 at 0.10 ppm.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of the FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

      1. Plant metabolism.  The qualitative nature of the residues of pendimethalin in plants is understood based on adequate studies conducted with 14 C pendimethalin on various crops.  Pendimethalin and its and its metabolite, 4-[(1-ethylpropyl)amino]-2-methyl-3,5-dinitrobenzyl alcohol
         are the residues of concern.

	2. Analytical method. Section 408 (b)(3) of the amended FDCA requires EPA to determine that there is a practical method for detecting and measuring levels of the pesticide chemical residue in or on food and that the tolerance be set at a level at or above of the limit of detection of the designated method.  In plants the method is aqueous organic solvent extraction, column clean up, and quantitation by GC.  The method has a limit of quantitation (LOQ) of 0.05 ppm for pendimethalin and the alcohol metabolite.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trials in major growing areas were carried out in order to determine the magnitude of residues in the hops commodities. Field trials were carried out using the maximum number of applications, the maximum label rate and shortest pre-harvest interval (PHI). No field trial data were generated in order to determine the magnitude of residues in raw agricultural commodities in crop groups 8, 10, 11, and 12, or in crop subgroups 3-07A, 3-07B or 13-07G, and 20B as EPA has determined that the tolerance on these crop commodities may be safely extrapolated from the established tolerances for the respective crop groupings and crop subgroups. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the above aforementioned crops.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity. Pendimethalin technical demonstrates low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure.  The acute toxicity studies place technical pendimethalin in toxicity category III for the acute oral, category IV for acute dermal, and category IV for acute inhalation.  Technical pendimethalin is category IV for skin irritation and category III for eye irritation. Pendimethalin did not cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs.  Two formulated end use products are registered for use on crops, an Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC) and an Encapsulated Suspension (CS).  The EC has an acute oral category of III, acute dermal category of III, an acute inhalation category of III, eye and skin irritation of III, and is not a dermal sensitizer.  The CS has an acute oral category of IV, an acute dermal category of IV, an acute inhalation category of IV, eye and skin irritation category of IV, and is not a dermal sensitizer.

	2. Genotoxicty. Extensive mutagenicity studies conducted to investigate point and gene mutations, DNA damage and chromosomal aberration, both using in vitro and in vivo test systems demonstrate pendimethalin to be non-genotoxic.

Pendimethalin has been classified as a Group C "possible human carcinogen," based on a statistically significantly increased incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in male and female rats at 5000 ppm (250 milligram/kilogram body weight (mg/kg b.w.)/day) (highest concentration tested).  For risk assessment, the EPA recommends using the RfD (non-linear) approach for quantification of human risk.  The Agency has determined that the hypothesis, that benign thyroid tumors associated with pendimethalin are due to a thyroid-pituitary imbalance, can be supported.  Finally, pendimethalin's mechanism of threshold oncogenic activity only occurs at high doses in rats, a mammalian species that is expected to be much more sensitive than humans to the induction of thyroid tumors via conditions which result in hypothyroidism.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Pendimethalin is not a selective developmental toxicant.  There is no indication of increased susceptibility following prenatal/postnatal exposure to pendimethalin.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rat, the results demonstrated that the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)s for both maternal toxicity and fetal (prenatal)/developmental toxicity were 500 mg/kg b.w./day, highest dose tested (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any teratogenic effects in the rat fetuses at 500 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).  Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rat.

In a developmental (teratology) toxicity study in the rabbit, the results demonstrated the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 30 mg/kg b.w./day, based on increased clinical signs of toxicity and decreased body weight gain during the treatment period at 60 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).  The NOAEL for fetal (prenatal)/developmental toxicity was 60 mg/kg b.w./day (HDT).  In addition, there were no indications of any teratogenic effects in the rabbit fetuses at 60 mg/kg b.w./day.  Therefore, pendimethalin is considered to be neither a developmental toxicant nor a teratogenic agent in the rabbit.

A two-generation reproductive toxicity study in the rat demonstrated an absence of increased sensitivity for the developing offspring to pendimethalin.  The NOAEL for parental toxicity was 500 ppm (approximately 38.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on reduced food consumption and decreased body weight/weight gain at 2500 ppm (mid-dietary concentration).  The NOAEL for pup/offspring toxicity was also 500 ppm, based on decreased pup body weight gain at 2500 ppm.  Lastly, the NOAEL for reproductive toxicity was 2500 ppm (approximately 194 mg/kg b.w./day), based on reduced mean live litter size at 5000 ppm (HDT).  These reductions in mean live litter size and pup body weight gain were only observed at dietary concentrations that were parentally toxic.  As such, there is no evidence that prenatal or postnatal exposure to pendimethalin results in an increased sensitivity to developing offspring.

	4. Sub-chronic toxicity. Sub-chronic (90-day) feeding studies were conducted in rats and dogs.  For the rat, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm (41 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased body weight, increased absolute and relative liver weights, and liver histopathology (hepatocellular hypertrophy) in males and females at 5000 ppm (HDT).  For the dog, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 2500 ppm (62.5 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight at 10000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day).

	5. Chronic toxicity. The chronic Reference Dose (RfD) was established based on the results of sub-chronic special studies demonstrating the thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats.  The NOAEL of 10 mg/kg b.w./day was established from the collective results of the sub-chronic oral 92-day thyroid function study, the sub-chronic oral 56-day thyroid function study, and the 14-day intrathyroidal metabolism study.  A lowest-observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 31 mg/kg b.w./day was based on hormonal and histopathological changes in the thyroid gland.  The chronic RfD was calculated to be 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day using an Uncertainty Factor (UF) of 30X (3X for interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intraspecies variability).  EPA currently recommends a FQPA Safety Factor of 1X.  Therefore, the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (PAD) is 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day.

Chronic toxicity studies were conducted in rats, mice, and dogs.  For the 2-year rat feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm (25 mg/kg b.w./day), based on decreased body weight gain (approximately 20-30%), increased clinical signs of toxicity, increased relative liver weights, and slight but statistical increase in the incidence of benign follicular cell adenomas of the thyroid gland in males and females at 5000 ppm (250 mg/kg b.w./day) (HDT).  For the 18-month mouse feeding study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 500 ppm (75 mg/kg b.w./day), based on slightly decreased mean body weights and reduced survival at 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HDT).  There were no oncogenic effects up to 5000 ppm (750 mg/kg b.w./day) (HDT).  Lastly, for the 1-year oral (via gelatin capsules) chronic dog study, the NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 200 mg/kg b.w./day, the highest dose tested.

	6. Animal metabolism. Adequate goat and poultry metabolism studies are available for pendimethalin. The Agency has determined that there is no reasonable expectation of finite pendimethalin residues of concern in animal commodities as a result of use on multiple crops.

In the rat, pendimethalin is metabolized mainly through oxidation of the 4-methyl group attached to the benzene ring as well as oxidation of the alkyl side chain of the N-substituted dinitroaniline compound.  When C14-pendimethalin is administered to rates, about 70% of the radioactivity is excreted in feces and 20% is in the urine within 24 hours.  Within 96 hours, the radioactivity found in the tissues was 0.3 ppm or less, except fat which is 0.9 ppm.  The major portion of the radioactivity that was excreted in the feces was identified as the parent compound.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. The main pendimethalin plant metabolite, CL 202347, has been tested for toxicity.  The acute oral toxicity in mice was determined to be 2140 mg/kg bw.  An Ames assay showed the metabolite to be non-mutagenic.

	8. Endocrine disruption. It is known that pendimethalin affects the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid axis.  However, as the chronic RfD (0.3 mg/kg b.w./day) is based on the thyroid hormone related endpoint in rats, as noted in the sub-chronic special studies in Section 5 above, which additionally demonstrated reversibility of the thyroid effects in the oral 56-day thyroid function study, these effects are already taken into consideration in the characterization of potential risks to humans.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Pendimethalin is a pre-emergent herbicide used to control broadleaf and grass weeds in food and non-food crops, as well as non-agricultural use sites including residential lawns. In examining aggregate exposure, FQPA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and water (dietary) and all other non-occupational exposures. The primary non-food sources of exposure are through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). The potential for aggregate exposure from all registered and proposed uses is discussed below.

	i. Food. An assessment was conducted to evaluate the potential risk due to chronic dietary exposure of the U.S. population to residues of pendimethalin.  The current tolerance values are listed in the U.S. 40 CFR § 180.361.

This analysis included all the crops with established tolerance values as of October 2012, and the proposed new tolerances for hops, dried cones at 1.0 ppm.  Also, proposed new crop group tolerances to replace current existing pendimethalin tolerances.  The current existing tolerances to be replaced are garlic at 0.1 ppm, leek at 0.20 ppm, onion-bulb at 0.10 ppm, onion-green at 0.20 ppm, shallot at 0.20 ppm, onion-welsh at 0.20 ppm, strawberry at 0.10 ppm, vegetable-fruiting group 8 at 0.10 ppm, fruit, citrus group 10 at 0.10 ppm, fruit, pome group 11 at 0.10 ppm, fruit-stone group 12 at 0.10 ppm, and sunflower seed at 0.1 ppm.  The proposed new crop group tolerances are onion, bulb subgroup 3-07A at 0.10 ppm, onion-green subgroup 3-07B at 0.20 ppm, berry, low growing subgroup 13-07G at 0.10 ppm, vegetable-fruiting group 8-10 at 0.10 ppm, fruit-citrus group 10-10, fruit, pome group 11-10 at 0.10 ppm, fruit, stone group 12-12 at 0.10 ppm, and sunflower subgroup at 0.1 ppm.

Acute Dietary (food + drinking water) Exposure Assessment
An acute dietary risk assessment for females, age 13  -  49 years old, is not required by EPA because there is no relevant toxicological endpoints for population sub-group.  EPA has determined that an acute dietary assessment is required for all other populations. The acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) is 1 mg ai/kg bw/day based on a NOAEL = 100 mg/kg bw/day and a total safety factor of 100.  The acute dietary exposure to pendimethalin residues was low for all populations.  The most highly exposure sub-populations was infants (< 1 year old) and utilized only 1.8% aPAD.

Chronic Dietary (food + water) Exposure Assessment
The chronic dietary exposure estimates were based on established and proposed tolerance values, and 100% crop treated (CT) values. Default process factors were used with consumption data from the USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII 1994 - 1996, 1998).  The EPA Food Commodity Ingredient Database (FCID) was also used in Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation Module (DEEM-FCID) software.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.3 mg/kg b.w./day for all populations subgroups. Results of the chronic dietary assessments are listed in Table 1 below. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from crops (both established and proposed tolerances) was less than 2.0% of the cPAD for all subpopulations. Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated residues and percent crop treated values for the established crop uses would further reduce the estimated chronic dietary exposure. The results in Table 1 below demonstrate there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

            Table 1. Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure (food + drinking water) Assessment considering crops with established and proposed tolerances for pendimethalin.

 Population
 Subgroups
                               Exposure Estimate
                               (mg/kg b.w./day)
                                     %cPAD
                                 US Population
                                   0.001984
                                      0.6
                           All infants (< 1 year)
                                   0.003665
                                      1.1
                                 Children 1-2
                                   0.006786
                                      2.0
                                 Children 3-5
                                   0.005115
                                      1.5
                                 Children 6-12
                                   0.002989
                                      0.9
                                  Youth 13-19
                                   0.001679
                                      0.5
                                 Adults 20-49
                                   0.001535
                                      0.5
                                Adults 50+ yrs
                                   0.001438
                                      0.4
                              Females 13 - 49 yrs
                                   0.001502
                                      0.5
 %cPAD = percent of chronic population adjusted dose
 Exposure estimates based on tolerance values and 100 % CT values

	ii. Drinking Water. The drinking water exposure values used in this assessment were obtained from the most recent pendimethalin assessment conducted by EPA published on July 25, 2012. The estimated acute and chronic surface water concentrations were 80.5 microgram per liter (ug/L) and 6.2ug/L, respectively. The estimated groundwater concentration was 0.036ug/L. The estimated drinking water exposure was included in the dietary assessment.

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)
The acute dietary assessment was conducted including food and drinking water exposure.  Residential exposure is not included in the acute aggregate assessment.    The results showed that the acute aggregate exposure from pendimethalin residues does not exceed the level of concern for any population.

Short- and Intermediate-Term Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food, water, and residential)
Short-term aggregate risk from pendimethalin takes into account exposures from dietary consumption (food and water) and residential exposure from turf use.  Post application exposure from the turf use is considered short-term.  The residential exposure used in this assessment is from the most recent EPA human health risk assessment published July 25, 2012.  The residential assessment was conducted using the updated Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment.  The post-application residential exposure was determined for the use on residential turf, residential gardens, and golf course turf.  The highest post-application exposure from adults was from the garden use and residential turf use for children 1-2 years old.  The children exposure included dermal and hand-to-mouth exposure.  The aggregate margin of exposure (MOE) from food, water, and residential exposure for children 1-2 years old was 92 and for adults was 125.  These MOEs are greater than the target MOE of 30, which indicates there is no safety concern from the aggregate exposure from pendimethalin.  The results of the analysis are shown in Tables 2.

Table 2. 	Estimated short/intermediate term aggregate exposure and risk of pendimethalin.
                                  Population
                               NOAEL (mg/kg/day)
                                 Target MOE[1]
           Food + Drinking Water Exposure               (mg/kg/day)

                       Residential Exposure (mg/kg/day)
                          Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)
                                    MOE[2]

                                     Adult
                                      10
                                      30
                                   0.001984
                                     0.078
                                   0.079984
                                      125
                                     Child
                                  1-2 yr old
                                      10
                                      30
                                   0.006786
                                     0.102
                                   0.108786
                                      92

1 Target MOE is 30.
[2] Aggregate MOE = (NOAEL / (Food + Water + Residential Exposure)

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)
The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of pendimethalin from food and water (Table 1). Exposures from residential uses are not included in the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. The post-application short-term dermal and incidental oral exposure and risk assessment was determined for pendimethalin use on residential turf, residential gardens, and golf course turf. The residential exposure shown in the Table 3 reflects the most recent EPA human health risk assessment published on July 25, 2012.  The residential assessment was conducted using the updated Standard Operating Procedures for Residential Pesticide Exposure Assessment.  The calculated MOEs are all greater than the MOE level of concern.

Table 3.	Pendimethalin Residential Exposure after the use on Residential Turf, Residential Gardens, and Golf Course Turf.
                                  Population
                                   Scenario-
                                     Route
                                  Exposure
                                      MOE
Adult
                               Turf-residential
                                    Dermal
                                     0.032
                                      313
Child 1-2
                               Turf-residential
                                    Dermal
                                     0.06
                                      167

                                 Hand to mouth
                                     0.042
                                      238

                                Object to mouth
                                    0.0013
                                     7692

                                soil ingestion
                                   0.000065
                                    153846

                              Granular injestion
                                     0.071
                                      141
Adult
                                   Turf-golf
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0037
                                     2703
Children 11-16
                                   Turf-Golf
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0043
                                     2326
Children 6-11
                                   Turf-Golf
                                    Dermal
                                    0.0051
                                     1961
Adult
                                   Gardening
                                    Dermal
                                     0.078
                                      128
Children 6-11
                                  Gardening
                                    Dermal
                                     0.053
                                      189
]

D. Cumulative Effects

	Exposure to Substances with Common Mechanism of Toxicity.  The Agency has not yet published guidelines to determine whether pendimethalin has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment.  Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, pendimethalin does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, it is assumed that pendimethalin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.

	2. Infants and children. Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children, or any subpopulation from aggregate exposure to pendimethalin residues.

F. International Tolerances

	There are no CODEX, Canadian or Mexican International Maximum Residue Levels (MRL's) established for residues of pendimethalin in these crops at this time.


[Federal Register: September 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 51296-51297]
[DOCID:fr02se08-50]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0706; FRL-8710-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; State Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs
(SBTCP) Annual Reporting Form (Reinstatement); EPA ICR No. 1748.07, OMB
Control No. 2060-0337

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information
Collection Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to
reinstate a previously approved collection. The ICR, which is
abstracted below, describes the nature of the information collection
and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 2,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-
2007-0706, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Office of Environmental Information Docket (28221T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention:
Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Suber, Office of Small Business
Programs, 1230T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On September 25, 2007, (72 FR 54444), EPA sought comments on
this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments during
the comment period. Any additional comments on this ICR should be
submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OA-2007-0706, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/
DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The EPA/DC 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 Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the
OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at www.regulations.gov as EPA receives
them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted
material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information
whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For further
information about the electronic docket, go to www.regulations.gov.
    Title: State Small Business Stationary Source Technical and
Environmental Compliance Assistance Programs (SBTCP) Annual Reporting
Form (Reinstatement).
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1748.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0337.
    ICR Status: This ICR is expired. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the CFR,
after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40
CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register
or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the U.S.
Congress included, as part of Section 507, the requirement that each
state establish a Small Business Stationary Source Technical and
Environmental Compliance Assistance Program to assist small businesses
in complying with the Act. These programs are generally known as state
Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs (SBEAP). EPA must
provide the Congress with periodic reports from the EPA Small Business
Ombudsman (SBO) on these programs, including their effectiveness,
difficulties encountered, and other relevant information. Each state
assistance program will submit requested information to EPA for
compilation and summarization. This collection of information is
mandatory under Section 507(a), (d), and (e) of the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990, Public Law 101-549, November 15, 1990. This Act
directs EPA to monitor the state SBEAPs and to periodically report to
Congress and others on the effectiveness of these programs. This
responsibility has been delegated to the EPA SBO. Response to the
collection is not required to obtain or retain a benefit. Information
in the annual 507 Program Report is aggregated and is not of a
confidential nature. None of the information collected by this action
results in/or requests sensitive information of any nature from the
states.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 40
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and

requirements which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: State Small Business Stationary
Source Technical and Environmental Compliance Assistances Programs
(SBTCPs).
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 53.
    Frequency of Response: Annual.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 2,120.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $96,312, includes $0 annualized
capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no burden currently approved for
this ICR. However, the total estimated burden in this ICR is identical
to that which was previously approved.

    Dated: August 26, 2008.
Sara Hisel-McCoy,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. E8-20243 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 25 (Monday, February 8, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6475-6477]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02193]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-0462; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-144-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and
-900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of
wire chafing damage, which caused an electrical arc to an adjacent
hydraulic tube located on the forward bulkhead of the main landing gear
(MLG) wheel well, resulting in a hole in a hydraulic tube and
consequent total loss of system B hydraulic fluid. This proposed AD
would require an inspection for chafing damage of wire bundles and a
hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well, and corrective
action if necessary; and installation of clamps between the wire
bundles and hydraulic tube. We are proposing this AD to prevent chafing
damage, which could result in electrical arcing that can cause a hole
in the hydraulic tube and consequent loss of hydraulic fluid, possibly
resulting in a fire in the MLG wheel well.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-0462.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
0462; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean J. Schauer, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-0462;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-144-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report of damage to wire W6128-0506-10. The wire
had chafed and arced to an adjacent hydraulic tube located on the
forward bulkhead of the MLG wheel well. The chafing and electrical arc
created a small hole in a system B hydraulic tube and caused damage to
the wire bundle, which resulted in a ground fault detection on the
system A electrical motor-driven pump (EMDP). The small hole led to a
total loss of system B hydraulic fluid and the ground fault resulted in
removal of power from the system A EMDP and illumination of the system
A EMDP low power light. An investigation found that there was not
sufficient separation between the wire bundles W6128, W8122, and the
adjacent hydraulic tube at that location. This condition, if not
corrected, could result in electrical arcing that can cause

a hole in the hydraulic tube and consequent loss of hydraulic fluid,
possibly resulting in a fire in the MLG wheel well.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, dated August
4, 2015. The service information describes procedures for doing an
inspection for chafing damage of the wire bundles and hydraulic tube in
the right side of the MLG wheel well, corrective actions, and
installation of clamps and an optional spacer between the wire bundles
and hydraulic tube. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. For information on the
procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
0462.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,270 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
              Action                        Labor cost            Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection and Installation.......  2 work-hours x $85 per                 $9             $179         $227,330
                                     hour = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-0462; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-144-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 24, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
29A1119, dated August 4, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic
power.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of wire chafing damage, which
caused an electrical arc to an adjacent hydraulic tube located on
the forward bulkhead of the main landing gear (MLG) wheel well,
resulting in a hole in a hydraulic tube and consequent total loss of
system B hydraulic fluid. We are issuing this AD to prevent chafing
damage, which could result in electrical arcing that can cause a
hole in the hydraulic tube and consequent loss of hydraulic fluid,
possibly resulting in a fire in the MLG wheel well.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Inspection and Corrective Action and Clamp Installation

    Within 24 months after the effective date of this AD: Do the
actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD:
    (1) Do a detailed inspection for chafing damage of the wire
bundles and hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well,
and do all applicable corrective actions, in

accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, dated August 4, 2015. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight.
    (2) Install new clamps and an optional spacer between the wire
bundles and hydraulic tube in the right side of the MLG wheel well,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-29A1119, dated August 4, 2015.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sean J. Schauer,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 27, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-02193 Filed 2-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27807-27812]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12751]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83396; File No. SR-BOX-2018-21]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility
To Amend Fees and Rebates for Non-Auction Transactions

June 8, 2018.
    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 May 31, 2018, BOX Options Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the

Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule on
the BOX Market LLC (``BOX'') options facility. While changes to the fee
schedule pursuant to this proposal will be effective upon filing, the
changes will become operative on June 1, 2018. The text of the proposed
rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at
the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's
internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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 make changes to Section I. (Electronic
Transaction Fees).
Exchange Fees for Non-Auction Transactions
    The Exchange proposes to adjust certain fees for Non-Auction
Transactions. Currently, for all non-auction transactions, fees and
credits are assessed depending upon three factors: (i) The account type
of the Participant submitting the order; (ii) whether the Participant
is a liquidity provider or liquidity taker; and (iii) the account type
of the contra party. Non-Auction Transactions in Penny Pilot Classes
are assessed different fees or credits than Non-Auction Transactions in
Non-Penny Pilot Classes.
    The current fees for Non-Auction Transactions are:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Penny Pilot Classes     Non-Penny Pilot Classes
            Account type                   Contra party      ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maker fee    Taker fee    Maker fee    Taker fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer.....................  Public Customer.......        $0.05        $0.05        $0.05        $0.05
                                      Professional Customer/         0.05         0.05         0.05         0.05
                                       Broker Dealer.
                                      Market Maker..........         0.05         0.05         0.05         0.05
Professional Customer or Broker       Public Customer.......         0.60         0.45         0.95         0.85
 Dealer.                              Professional Customer/         0.05         0.45         0.05         0.60
                                       Broker Dealer.
                                      Market Maker..........         0.05         0.45         0.05         0.60
Market Maker........................  Public Customer.......         0.27         0.43         0.65         0.80
                                      Professional Customer/         0.00         0.29         0.00         0.40
                                       Broker Dealer.
                                      Market Maker..........         0.00         0.29         0.00         0.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to remove the fees assessed for Public
Customers that make or take liquidity against Public Customers in Penny
Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. Next, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate the fees assessed to Public Customers that make liquidity
against Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in
Penny Pilot and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. Lastly, the Exchange proposes
to assess a $0.20 credit for Public Customers that take liquidity from
Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot
Classes and a $0.50 credit for Public Customers that take liquidity
from Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Non-
Penny Pilot Classes.
    The Exchange proposes to adjust the fees assessed for Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers. In Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange
proposes to adjust the fees assessed for Professional Customers and
Broker Dealers that that take liquidity from all other Participants.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee assessed to
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers that take liquidity from
Public Customers, Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market
Makers to $0.50 from $0.45 in Penny Pilot Classes. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to increase the fees assessed for Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers making liquidity against Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot Classes
to $0.15 from $0.05. For Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange proposes
to increase the fees assessed for Professional Customers and Broker
Dealers making liquidity against Non-Public Customers to $0.15 from
$0.05. The Exchange also proposes to increase the fees assessed for
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers taking liquidity from Public
Customers to $0.95 from $0.85 in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. Lastly, with
regard to Professional Customers/Broker Dealers taking liquidity from
Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Non-Penny
Pilot Classes, the Exchange proposes to increase the fees assessed to
$0.85 from $0.60.
    The Exchange then proposes to adjust the fees assessed for Market
Makers in Non-Auction Transactions. First, the Exchange proposes to
increase the fees assessed on Market Makers making liquidity against a
Public Customer to $0.50 from $0.27 in Penny Pilot Classes. With regard
to Market Makers taking liquidity against Public Customers in Penny
Pilot Classes, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee to $0.50 from
$0.43. Further, the Exchange proposes to increase the fee for Market
Makers taking liquidity against Professional Customers and Broker
Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot Classes to $0.50 from $0.29.
Lastly, the Exchange proposes to adjust the fees assessed to Market
Makers in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. Specifically, the

Exchange proposes to increase the fee assessed to a Market Maker when
making liquidity from a Public Customer in Non-Penny Pilot Classes to
$0.95 from $0.65. In Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange proposes to
increase the fee assessed to Market Makers taking liquidity from a
Public Customer to $0.95 from $0.80. Lastly, the Exchange proposes to
increase the fees assessed to Market Makers taking liquidity from
Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Non-Penny
Pilot Classes to $0.75 from $0.40.
    The fees for Non-Auction Transactions will be as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Penny Pilot Classes     Non-Penny Pilot Classes
            Account type                   Contra party      ---------------------------------------------------
                                                               Maker fee    Taker fee    Maker fee    Taker fee
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Customer.....................  Public Customer.......        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
                                      Professional Customer/         0.00       (0.20)         0.00       (0.50)
                                       Broker Dealer.
                                      Market Maker..........         0.00       (0.20)         0.00       (0.50)
Professional Customer or Broker       Public Customer.......         0.60         0.50         0.95         0.95
 Dealer                               Professional Customer/         0.15         0.50         0.15         0.85
                                       Broker Dealer.
                                      Market Maker..........         0.15         0.50         0.15         0.85
Market Maker........................  Public Customer.......         0.50         0.50         0.95         0.95
                                      Professional Customer/         0.00         0.50         0.00         0.75
                                       Broker Dealer.
                                      Market Maker..........         0.00         0.50         0.00         0.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions
    The Exchange proposes to amend Section I.A.1. of the BOX Fee
Schedule, Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adjust the rebates in the Tiered
Volume Rebate for Public Customers in Non Auction Transactions. The
current Tiered Volume Rebate for Public Customers in Non-Auction
Transactions is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Per contract rebate
                                 Percentage thresholds of    ---------------------------------------------------
            Tier                national customer volume in      Penny Pilot Classes     Non-Penny Pilot Classes
                                 multiply- listed options    ---------------------------------------------------
                                     classes (monthly)           Maker        Taker        Maker        Taker
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  0.000-0.129...................        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
2...........................  0.130-0.339...................       (0.05)       (0.05)       (0.20)       (0.20)
3...........................  0.340-0.549...................       (0.15)       (0.15)       (0.30)       (0.30)
4...........................  0.550 and Above...............       (0.25)       (0.25)       (0.50)       (0.50)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to adjust certain maker and taker rebates in
Tiers 2 through 4 of the Tiered Volume Rebate structure for Public
Customers in both Penny Pilot Classes and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. The
new per contract rebate for Public Customers in Non-Auction
Transactions as set forth in Section I.A.1. of the BOX Fee Schedule
will be as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Per contract rebate
                                 Percentage thresholds of    ---------------------------------------------------
            Tier                national customer volume in      Penny Pilot Classes     Non-Penny Pilot Classes
                                 multiply- listed options    ---------------------------------------------------
                                     classes (monthly)           Maker        Taker        Maker        Taker
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................  0.000-0.129...................        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00        $0.00
2...........................  0.130-0.339...................       (0.05)       (0.15)       (0.15)       (0.27)
3...........................  0.340-0.549...................       (0.10)       (0.20)       (0.30)       (0.32)
4...........................  0.550 and Above...............       (0.27)       (0.27)       (0.60)       (0.40)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers. The proposed changes will allow the Exchange to be
competitive with other exchanges and to apply fees, credits and rebates
in a manner that is equitable among all BOX Participants. Further, the
Exchange operates within a highly competitive market in which market
participants can readily direct order flow to any other competing
exchange if they determine fees at a particular exchange to be
excessive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Non-Auction Transactions
    The Exchange believes it is equitable, reasonable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess fees according to the account type of the
Participant originating the order and the contra party. This fee
structure has been in place on the Exchange since 2014 and the Exchange
is simply adjusting certain fees within the structure.\6\ The result of
this structure is that a Participant does not know the fee it will be
charged when submitting certain orders. Therefore, the Participant must
recognize that it could be charged the

highest applicable fee on the Exchange's schedule, which may, instead,
be lowered depending upon how the order interacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Release No. 73547 (November 6,
2014), 79 FR 67520 (November 13, 2014) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness SR-BOX-2014-25).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes removing non-auction transaction fees for
Public Customers making or taking liquidity against Public Customers in
Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes, as well as Public Customers making
liquidity against Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
Further, the Exchange believes that providing a $0.20 and $0.50 credit
to Public Customers that take liquidity from Professional Customers,
Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny Pilot Classes and Non-Penny
Pilot Classes, respectively, is also reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange notes that it has either not
charged or provided a credit to Public Customers for Non-Auction
Transactions on BOX in the past.\7\ Further, the Exchange believes
providing a credit or charging no fee to Public Customers for all Non-
Auction Transactions is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. The
securities markets generally, and BOX in particular, have historically
aimed to improve markets for investors and develop various features
within the market structure for Public Customer benefit. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes that charging no fee or providing a credit for
Public Customers is appropriate and not unfairly discriminatory. Public
Customers are less sophisticated than other Participants and the credit
will help to attract a high level of Public Customer order flow to the
BOX Book and create liquidity, which the Exchange believes will
ultimately benefit all Participants trading on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75350 (July
1, 2015), 80 FR 39169 (July 8, 2015) (SR-BOX-2015-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to give Public Customers a credit (or charge no
fee) when their orders execute against a non-Public Customer and,
accordingly, charge non-Public Customers a higher fee when their orders
execute against a Public Customer. As stated above, the Exchange aims
to improve markets by developing features for the benefit of its Public
Customers. Similar to the payment for order flow and other pricing
models that have been adopted by the Exchange and other exchanges to
attract Public Customer order flow, the Exchange increases fees to non-
Public Customers in order to provide incentives for Public Customers.
Further, the Exchange believes that providing a higher credit in Non-
Penny Pilot Classes is reasonable. As discussed herein, Non-Penny Pilot
Classes are traded less actively and the Exchange believes that
providing this higher credit in Non-Penny Pilot Classes will provide
incentive for Public Customers to trade in these classes. The Exchange
believes that providing incentives for Non-Auction Transactions by
Public Customers is reasonable and, ultimately, will benefit all
Participants trading on the Exchange by attracting Public Customer
order flow.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Professional
Customers and Broker Dealers in Non-Auction Transactions are
reasonable. Under the proposed fee structure, a Professional Customer
or Broker Dealer making liquidity and interacting with a Professional
Customer, Broker Dealer or Market Marker will now be charged a fee of
$0.15 in both Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes. If the Professional
Customer or Broker Dealer is instead taking liquidity in the Penny
Pilot, it will be charged $0.50 against any other Participant. If the
Professional Customer or Broker Dealer is taking liquidity in the Non-
Penny Pilot, it will be charged $0.95 if it interacts with a Public
Customer and $0.85 if it interacts with a Professional Customer/Broker
Dealer or Market Maker. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees
are reasonable as they are in line with the current fees assessed by
another competing exchange.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'') Fee Schedule. On ISE,
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers are charged $0.10 for
making liquidity in Penny Pilot Classes and charged $0.46 for taking
liquidity in Penny Pilot Classes. See also NYSE Arca Inc (``Arca'')
Fee Schedule. Arca charges Professional Customers and Broker Dealers
$1.10 for taking liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that charging Professional Customers and
Broker Dealers higher fees than Public Customers for their Non-Auction
Transactions is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Professional
Customers, while Public Customers by virtue of not being Broker
Dealers, generally engage in trading activity more similar to Broker
Dealer proprietary trading accounts. The Exchange believes that the
higher level of trading activity from these Participants will draw a
greater amount of BOX system resources; the Exchange aims to recover
its costs by assessing Professional Customers and Broker Dealers higher
fees for transactions.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Market Makers in
Non-Auction Transactions are reasonable. With the proposed fee changes,
a Market Maker making liquidity will now be charged a higher fee of
$0.50 (Penny Pilot) and $0.95 (Non-Penny Pilot) for interacting with a
Public Customer. Further, a Market Maker taking liquidity against a
Public Customer will now be charged $0.50 in Penny Pilot Classes and
$0.95 in Non-Penny Pilot Classes. If a Market Maker is taking liquidity
in Penny Pilot Classes and interacts with a Professional Customer/
Broker Dealer or Market Maker they will now be charged a fee of $0.50.
Lastly, if a Market Maker is taking liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot
Classes and interacts with a Professional Customer/Broker Dealer or
Market Maker, they will now be charged $0.75. The Exchange believes the
fees listed above are reasonable and appropriate as they are in line
with what is currently charged by the industry.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Id. On ISE and Arca, the general range for Market Maker fees
is between $0.10 and $1.10. The Exchange notes that Arca provides a
rebate to Market Makers that post liquidity in both Penny and Non-
Penny Pilot Classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to charge the Market Maker equal or less for making or
taking liquidity than Professional Customers or Broker Dealers.
Specifically, Market Makers have certain obligations that other
Participants do not and can ultimately provide more value by directing
liquidity to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes will benefit all
Participants trading on BOX.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory for Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers to be charged higher fees when interacting with Public Customers
than interacting with other Participants on BOX. The Exchange believes
they are reasonable as they are in a similar range with the fees in the
options industry.\10\ Further, as stated above, the Exchange believes
charging a higher fee for interactions with a Public Customer when
compared to interactions with other Participants is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it allows the Exchange to incentivize
Public Customer order flow by offering low fees and rebate potential to
Public Customers in Non-Auction Transactions. The Exchange believes
that providing these incentives for Non-Auction Transactions by Public

Customers will benefit all Participants trading on the Exchange by
attracting this Public Customer order flow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id. On ISE and Arca, the general range for Broker Dealer
and Professional Customer fees is between $0.10 and $1.10. The
Exchange notes that Arca provides a rebate to Broker Dealers and
Professional Customers that make liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny
Pilot Classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory that Professional Customers, Broker Dealers and Market
Makers be charged a higher fee for certain orders removing liquidity,
when compared to the fee they receive for orders that add liquidity.
Charging a lower fee for orders that add liquidity will promote
liquidity on the Exchange and ultimately benefit all participants on
BOX. Further, the concept of incentivizing orders that add liquidity
over orders that remove liquidity is commonly accepted within the
industry as part of the ``Make/Take'' liquidity model.
    The Exchange believes that providing a credit to Public Customers
that take liquidity from Professional Customers/Broker Dealers and
Market Makers in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes, compared to the
$0.00 fee they are assessed when making liquidity against Professional
Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers, is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory. Instead of providing a credit for both
making and taking liquidity, the Exchange believes the high credit for
taking liquidity will attract Public Customer order flow to BOX which,
in turn, will lead to more robust market making on the Exchange, thus
benefitting all market participants. The securities markets generally,
and BOX in particular, have historically aimed to improve markets for
investors and develop various features within the market structure for
Public Customer benefit. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed
credit to Public Customers that take liquidity from Professional
Customers/Broker Dealers and Market Makers in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot
classes is reasonable.
    Finally, the Exchange also believes it is reasonable to charge
Professional Customers and Broker Dealers and Market Makers less for
certain executions in Penny Pilot issues compared to Non-Penny Pilot
issues because these classes are typically more actively traded;
assessing lower fees will further incentivize order flow in Penny Pilot
issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefiting all Participants trading
on BOX.
Tiered Volume Rebate for Non-Auction Transactions
    BOX believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to adjust certain rebates in the volume based thresholds
for Public Customers in all Non-Auction Transactions. The volume based
thresholds and applicable rebates are meant to incentivize Public
Customers to direct order flow to the Exchange to obtain the benefit of
the rebate, which will in turn benefit all market participants by
increasing liquidity on the Exchange. Other exchanges employ similar
incentive programs; \11\ and the Exchange believes that the proposed
changes to the volume based rebates are reasonable and competitive when
compared to incentive structures at other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Section B of the PHLX Pricing Schedule entitled
``Customer Rebate Program;'' and Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``CBOE'')
Volume Incentive Program (``VIP''). CBOE's VIP pays certain tiered
rebates to Trading Permit Holders for electronically executed
multiply-listed option orders, which include AIM orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to offer a higher per
contract rebate for transactions in Non-Penny Pilot Classes compared to
Penny Pilot Classes because Non-Penny Pilot Classes are typically less
actively traded and have wider spreads. The Exchange believes that
offering a higher rebate will incentivize Public Customer order flow in
Non-Penny Pilot issues on the Exchange, ultimately benefitting all
Participants trading on BOX.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to adjust certain rebates in
Tiers 2 through 4 of the Tiered Volume Rebate for Public Customers
making and taking liquidity in Non-Auction Transactions. The rebates
are meant to incentivize Public Customers to direct order flow to the
Exchange to obtain the benefit of the rebate, which will in turn
benefit all market participants by increasing liquidity on the
Exchange.
    The Exchange continues to believe it is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to have these rebate structures for Public Customers in
Non-Auction transactions. The practice of incentivizing increased
Public Customer order flow is common in the options markets. While the
Exchange proposes to decrease some of the Public Customer rebates in
Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes, the Exchange believes that Public
Customers will still benefit from the opportunity to obtain a rebate.
Additionally, most Public Customers currently achieve a volume based
rebate in their Non-Auction transactions.
    Further, the Exchange believes that providing a higher per contract
rebate for Public Customers taking liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny
Pilot Classes compared to making liquidity is reasonable and
appropriate. As discussed above, the Exchange believes the proposed
rebates for taking liquidity in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot Classes will
attract Public Customer order flow to BOX which, in turn, will lead to
more robust market making on the Exchange, thus benefitting all market
participants. As such, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes
are reasonable and appropriate.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed adjustments to fees in the
Non-Auction Transactions fee structure will not impose a burden on
competition among various Exchange Participants. Rather, BOX believes
that the changes will result in the Participants being charged
appropriately for these transactions and are designed to enhance
competition in Non-Auction transactions on BOX. Submitting an order is
entirely voluntary and Participants can determine which type of order
they wish to submit, if any, to the Exchange.
    The Exchange believes that amending the proposed rebate structure
for Public Customer Non-Auction Transactions will not impose a burden
on competition among various Exchange Participants. The Exchange
believes that the proposed changes will result in Public Customers
being rebated appropriately for these transactions. Further, the
Exchange believes that this proposal will enhance competition between
exchanges because it is designed to allow the Exchange to better
compete with other exchanges for order flow.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to
remain competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described
above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects
this competitive environment.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Exchange Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\13\ because it establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend the rule
change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
would otherwise further 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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2018-21 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-BOX-2018-21. 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 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. 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-BOX-2018-21, and should be submitted on
or before July 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12751 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 128 (Thursday, July 8, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36067]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14454]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0498]

Safety Zones; Recurring Safety Zones in Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie Zone, Festivals of Fireworks Celebration, St. Ignace, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Festivals
of Fireworks Celebration Fireworks in St. Ignace, MI. This action is
necessary to provide for safety on navigable waterways and intended to
protect life and property from the navigational hazards associated with
a fireworks display. During the enforcement periods, vessels must stay
out of the established safety zone and may only enter with permission
the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or a designated
representative.

DATES: The regulation listed in 33 CFR 165.918, Table 165.918(4), will
be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 10:30 p.m. on September 4, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
publication, call or email LT Deaven Palenzuela, Waterways Management
division, Coast Guard Sector Sault Sainte Marie, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone
for the Festivals of Fireworks Celebration Fireworks in St. Ignace, MI
as listed in 33 CFR 165.918, Table 165.918(4), from 9:30 p.m. through
10:30 p.m. on September 4, 2021, on all U.S. navigable waters of East
Moran Bay within an approximate 1,000-foot radius from the fireworks
launch site at the end of the Starline Mill Slip, centered in position:
45[deg]52'24.62'' N, 084[deg]43'18.13'' W. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23
and 165.918, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety
zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or a designated
representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may
request permission from the Captain of Port Sault Sainte Marie via
channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the
safety zone shall obey the directions of the Captain of the Port Sault
Sainte Marie or a designated representative.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.918 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime
community with advance notification of this enforcement period via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local Notice to Mariners. If the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie determines that the safety zone
need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice he or
she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission
to enter the respective safety zone.

    Dated: June 30, 2021.
A.R. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2021-14454 Filed 7-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P