[Federal Register: April 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 18499-18500]
[DOCID:fr12ap07-91]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55588; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2007-038]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Nasdaq Market Center Fees

April 5, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 3, 2007, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange''), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by Nasdaq.
Nasdaq has designated the proposal as constituting a ``non-
controversial'' proposed rule change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) 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).
    \4\ 4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Nasdaq proposes to modify the pricing for Nasdaq members using the
Nasdaq Market Center. Nasdaq proposes to make the proposed rule change
retroactively effective with respect to the Nasdaq Market Center's
invoices for executions of non-Nasdaq securities priced under $1 during
the period from March 5, 2007 to March 21, 2007.\5\ The text of the
proposed rule change is available at Nasdaq, on the Exchange's Web site
at http://www.nasdaq.com, and in the Commission's Public Reference

Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Telephone conversation between John Yetter, Vice President
and Deputy General Counsel, Nasdaq, and Sara Gillis, Attorney,
Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on April 5, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq 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
    Nasdaq recently reduced its fee for executing orders in non-Nasdaq
securities priced under $1 to 0.1% of the cost of the transaction,
effective March 22, 2007, on an immediately effective basis; this is
the same as the comparable fee for Nasdaq-listed securities that had
previously been in effect.\6\ Prior to this change, the execution fee
for non-Nasdaq securities priced under $1 had ranged from $0.0026 to
$0.003 per share executed. Nasdaq notes, however, that Rule 610(c)(2)
of Regulation NMS \7\ limits the fee on an execution of an order
against a protected quotation, if the price of the protected quotation
is less than $1, to 0.3% of the quotation's price per share.
Accordingly, Nasdaq is proposing to reduce the execution fee for non-
Nasdaq securities to 0.25% of the transaction cost for the period from
March 5, 2007 (the effective date of Rule 610) through March 21, 2007
(the day before the effectiveness of SR-NASDAQ-2007-026). The change
will result, in all circumstances, in a reduction of the execution fees
previously payable with respect to orders in non-Nasdaq securities
priced under $1. Nasdaq is not, however, proposing to modify the
routing fees or liquidity provider rebates applicable to transactions
in these securities during the same time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55576 (April 3,
2007) (SR-NASDAQ-2007-026).
    \7\ 17 CFR 242.610(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system
which Nasdaq operates or controls. This change will reduce execution
fees for trading non-Nasdaq securities at prices under $1 in a manner
consistent with the requirements of Rule 610 of Regulation NMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become
operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter
time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection
of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section

19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). As required by Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, the Exchange also provided with the
Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay and allow the proposed rule change to become operative
immediately. The Commission hereby grants that request.\12\ The
Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal raises no regulatory
issues, as the Exchange represents that proposed rule change will
result in a retroactive reduction in fees for all executions in non-
Nasdaq securities priced under $1 from March 5, 2007 to March 21, 2007.
Furthermore, this rule change will allow the Exchange to immediately
comply with the requirements of Rule 610(c)(2) of Regulation NMS, which
limits the fee on an execution of an order against a protected
quotation, if the price of the protected quotation is less than $1, to
0.3% of the quotation's price per share.\13\ Therefore, the Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \13\ 17 CFR 242.610(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-038 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-038.
This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of Nasdaq. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2007-038 and should be submitted on or before May
3, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6879 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: March 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 55)]
[Notices]
[Page 12441]
[DOCID:fr24mr09-153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-00-7006; FMCSA-06-26066; FMCSA-06-25246]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Renewals; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the
exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations for 19 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to
exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions
granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that
granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without
the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Room 8301, Washington, DC
20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The comment
period ended on March 9, 2009.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Conclusion

    The Agency has not received any adverse evidence on any of these
drivers that indicates that safety is being compromised. Based upon its
evaluation of the 19 renewal applications, FMCSA renews the Federal
vision exemptions for Kreis C. Baldridge, James L. Baynes, Daniel H.
Bungartz, Steven J. Clark, Donald D. Daniels, Michael A. Fouch, Thanh
V. Ha, Carl A. Lohrbach, James E. Menz, Jeffrey L. Olson, Chris H.
Pederson, Timmy J. Pottebaum, Donnie Riggs, Luis H. Sanchez, Phillip L.
Smith, Randall S. Surber, Brian S. Tuttle, Ernest W. Waff, and Joseph
W. Wigley.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each renewal
exemption will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: March 18, 2009.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E9-6457 Filed 3-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 94 (Monday, May 18, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23109]
[FR Doc No: E9-11477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-23742; Directorate Identifier 2005-NE-53-AD;
Amendment 39-15896; AD 2009-10-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney (PW) JT9D-7R4 Series
Turbofan Engines; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-10-01,
which was previously published in the Federal Register. That AD applies
to PW JT9D-7R4 series turbofan engines. In the Federal Register, the AD
number in the CFR citation of the headings section is incorrect. This
document corrects that AD number. In all other respects, the original
document remains the same.

DATES: Effective May 18, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Riley, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 5, 2009 (74 FR 20580), we published a
final rule AD, FR Doc, E9-10145, in the Federal Register. That AD
applies to PW JT9D-7R4 series turbofan engines. We need to make the
following correction:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
On page 20580, in the second column, in the Headings Section, in the
CFR citation, in the third line, ``AD 2009-10-06'' is corrected to read
``AD 2009-10-01''.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 7, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-11477 Filed 5-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 9215]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0973]

Random Drug Testing Rate for Covered Crewmembers for 2017

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of minimum random drug testing rate.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has set the calendar year 2017 minimum random
drug testing rate at 25 percent of covered crewmembers.

DATES: The minimum random drug testing rate is effective January 1,
2017 through December 31, 2017. Marine employers must submit their 2016
Management Information System (MIS) reports no later than March 15,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Annual MIS reports may be submitted by electronic submission
to the following Internet address: http://homeport.uscg.mil/Drugtestreports.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this notice,
please contact Mr. Patrick Mannion, Drug and Alcohol Prevention and
Investigation Program Manager, Office of Investigations and Casualty
Analysis (CG-INV), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, telephone 202-372-
1033.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard requires marine employers to
establish random drug testing programs for covered crewmembers on
inspected and uninspected vessels in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230.
Every marine employer is required by 46 CFR 16.500 to collect and
maintain a record of drug testing program data for each calendar year,
and submit this data by 15 March of the following year to the Coast
Guard in an annual MIS report.
    Each year, the Coast Guard will publish a notice reporting the
results of random drug testing for the previous calendar year's MIS
data and the minimum annual percentage rate for random drug testing for
the next calendar year. The purpose of setting a minimum random drug
testing rate is to assist the Coast Guard in analyzing its current
approach for deterring and detecting illegal drug abuse in the maritime
industry.
    The Coast Guard announces that the minimum random drug testing rate
for calendar year 2017 is 25 percent. The Coast Guard may increase this
rate if MIS data indicates a qualitative deficiency of reported data or
the positive random testing rate is greater than 1.0 percent in
accordance with 46 CFR part 16.230(f)(2). MIS data for 2016 indicates
that the positive rate is less than one percent.
    For 2017, the minimum random drug testing rate will continue at 25
percent of covered employees for the period of January 1, 2017 through
December 31, 2017 in accordance with 46 CFR 16.230(e).

    Dated: January 12, 2017.
Verne B. Gifford, Jr.,
Captain, USCG, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-02337 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 239 (Thursday, December 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64171-64173]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26945]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84754; File No. SR-ICEEU-2018-015]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to
Amendments to the ICE Clear Europe Limited Liquidity Plan

December 7, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On October 22, 2018, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear
Europe'') 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 (SR-ICEEU-2018-015) to amend its Liquidity Plan
\3\ to (i) refer to approved financial institutions (``AFI'') (such as
investment agents and custodians) more generally, rather than to
specific institutions; (ii) add an additional default scenario; (iii)
revise procedures related to liquid resources and make other
miscellaneous updates, including (a) clarifying the sources of
liquidity to be relied upon in stress scenarios, (b) indicating which
resources are excluded from those considered potential sources of
liquidity, (c) updating key risk and performance indicators used in
determining credit and liquidity standards of investments, and (d)
removing unnecessary risk default scenarios and correcting
typographical errors; and (iv) streamline its internal reporting
process. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2018.\4\ On November 30, ICE Clear
Europe filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change to make a
technical change to the Liquidity Plan. The Commission did not receive
comments on the proposed rule change. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comment on Amendment No. 1 from interested persons
and is approving the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1, on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Capitalized terms used in this order, but not defined
herein, have the same meaning as in the ICE Clear Europe Rules.
    \4\ Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 34-84533 (November
5, 2018), 83 FR 56107 (November 9, 2018) (SR-ICEEU-2018-015)
(``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

A. Changes to Approved Financial Institution

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend its Liquidity Plan to reflect
changes in its treasury arrangements and certain other enhancements.\5\
Specifically, the approved AFI default and AFI plus Member default
liquidity stress testing scenarios have been revised to refer to AFIs
more generally, rather than to specific institutions.\6\ Currently,
these two scenarios refer to specific institutions. However, ICE Clear
Europe believes that because it may use a number of different financial
institutions in these roles at various times, not naming a specific
institution would assist in keeping its Liquidity Plan up to date as
these service providers change.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Notice, 83 FR 56107.
    \6\ Id.
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Additional Default Scenario

    ICE Clear Europe proposes to amend the Liquidity Plan to add a new
Central Securities Depository (CSD) default scenario, which is defined
as a CSD being unable to process settlements.\8\ Currently, the
Liquidity Plan does not have a stress testing scenario assessing the
liquidity impact of the possibility that CSDs such as Euroclear Bank or
Euroclear UK & Ireland cease to be functional and not able to process
settlements. Under the scenario being proposed, available liquidity is
assessed against the expected net cash payment outflow for a single day
on a per currency basis, to determine if such a default could result in
a delay in payment to clearing members.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Updates and Clarifications to Liquidity Stress Testing Scenarios

    Other proposed updates and clarifications to the Liquidity Plan
include: adding intra-day overdraft facilities to the sources used for
the risk tolerance and risk appetite evaluations in the liquidity
stress testing scenarios; eliminating references to an ICE Inc. (ICE
Clear Europe's parent company) credit facility; in calculating the
investment loss component of liquidity stress losses in clearing member
default scenario, time deposits are assumed to have a 100% liquidity
loss; for liquidity stress testing scenarios that look at cash invested
with a one-day maturity, U.S. dollar investments in reverse repurchase
agreements in assets denominated in Euro or pounds sterling will be
excluded from available liquidity resources and cross-currency
investments for Euro and British pounds sterling balances are not
permitted; key risk and performance indicators used by ICE Clear Europe
to determine if investments meet its credit and liquidity standards
have been added; typographical errors corrected and a cross-reference
to various treasury operating procedures was updated; and certain risk
default scenarios have been removed.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Changes in Reporting and Governance

    ICE Clear Europe has also proposed changes related to its internal
reporting process. Specifically, several weekly and monthly liquidity
reports will no longer be sent to the Board Risk Committee and the
Board. Instead, the Audit Committee will receive certain liquidity
metrics, the Business Risk Committee will receive a liquidity
management summary and other summary data, and the Board will receive
collateral and investment data, certain liquidity metrics and
assessments, and key risk and performance indicators.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other proposed revisions to the Liquidity Plan include that the
Executive Risk Committee, as opposed to the Business Control Committee,
will review the plan annually and that aspects of the Liquidity Plan
will be tested annually.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    Section 19(b)(2)(C) of the Act directs the Commission to approve a
proposed rule change of a self-regulatory organization if it finds that
such proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to such
organization.\13\ For the reasons given below, the Commission finds
that the proposal is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act,
and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Consistency With Section 17A(b)(3)(F)

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act requires, among other things, that
the rules of a registered clearing agency be designed to promote the
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions
and, to the extent applicable, derivatives agreements,

contracts and transactions, and to assure the safeguarding of
securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the
clearing agency or for which it is responsible and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed changes described above,
taken as a whole, should improve ICE Clear Europe's ability to monitor
and test its liquidity in a variety of scenarios. First, by referring
to AFIs generally, ICE Clear Europe can efficiently plan for the
default by any AFI rather than having its plans linked to a particular
financial institution. This gives ICE Clear Europe the ability to
replace an AFI with another AFI without needing to first change the
text of its Liquidity Plan. This in turn would promote ICE Clear
Europe's ability manage the liquidity needed to promptly and accurately
clear and settle securities transactions and to safeguard the
securities and funds which are in its custody or control or for which
it is responsible by helping to ensure that ICE Clear Europe always has
an AFI to serve as an investment agent and/or custodian.
    Similarly, the Commission believes that the other amendments
described above serve to enhance the Liquidity Plan, thereby promoting
prompt and accurate clearance and settlement and the safeguarding of
funds and securities. For example, the Commission believes that adding
a new default scenario to liquidity stress testing and clarifying the
sources used to evaluate risk tolerance and appetite would enhance ICE
Clear Europe's ability to use the Liquidity Plan to anticipate
liquidity risks and the sources necessary to cope with such risks.
Further, the Commission believes that excluding investments in
repurchase agreements with foreign currency as collateral from
available liquid resources would assist ICE Clear Europe in avoiding
reliance on assets considered to contain more risk, thereby bolstering
ICE Clear Europe's overall approach to liquidity management. Likewise,
the Commission believes that the manner in which ICE Clear Europe has
added to and revised its key risk and performance indicators would
enhance the compliance tool used to test if investments made by
investment agents meet credit and liquidity requirements. As a result,
the Commission believes that these proposed changes to the Liquidity
Plan would in turn assist ICE Clear Europe in maintaining a level of
liquidity sufficient to promptly and accurately clear and settle
transactions and safeguard securities and funds. The Commission
therefore finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Consistency With Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7)

    Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) requires in relevant part that a clearing agency
establish, implement, maintain and enforce written policies and
procedures reasonably designed to effectively measure, monitor, and
manage the liquidity risk that arises in or is borne by it, including
through liquidity testing and by holding qualified liquid
resources.\16\ As described above, ICE Clear Europe proposes to refer
in its liquidity stress testing procedures to third party financial
institutions that serve as investment agents or custodians in general
terms rather than naming a specific institution. The Commission
believes that this change would bolster the Liquidity Plan by enhancing
the efficiency of the process ICE Clear Europe will use to account for
changes in such agents. This in turn would contribute to ICE Clear
Europe's ability to manage its liquidity risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described above, ICE Clear Europe proposes to add a CSD default
scenario to its stress testing procedures. The Commission believes that
adding another default scenario would enhance ICE Clear Europe's
Liquidity Plan by anticipating specifically how to prepare for a
default of a key participant in the clearing process, thereby
furthering ICE Clear Europe's ability to effectively measure, monitor,
and manage its liquidity risk.
    The Commission believes that the various other updates to the
Liquidity Plan described above would help ICE Clear Europe to
effectively measure, monitor, and manage its liquidity risk. For
instance, clarifying in the Liquidity Plan that ICE Clear Europe has
intra-day overdraft facilities to rely upon in various stress scenarios
would explain with greater specificity what sources of liquidity are
available to ICE Clear Europe to manage its liquidity risk.
Additionally, as noted above, other changes to the Liquidity Plan
include the fact that time deposits are assumed to have 100% liquidity
loss similar to other unsecured investments and that in scenarios which
include cash invested with a one day maturity, collateral underlying
investments that are denominated in foreign currency are excluded from
available liquid resources. The Commission believes that these changes
would enhance ICE Clear Europe's ability to manage liquidity risk by
specifying more clearly which resources constitute potential measures
to manage liquidity risk for the purposes of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) and
which resources do not.
    As described above, the Liquidity Plan also updates the table of
key performance indicators that it uses to determine if investments
meet credit and liquidity standards. For instance, the Liquidity Plan
now includes, among others, ratings checks for unsecured investments
and repo balance per counterparty. The Commission believes the proposed
changes to the key risk and performance indicators would enhance ICE
Clear Europe's liquidity monitoring by giving it more tools to monitor
investments and hence its liquidity.
    As described above, ICE Clear Europe also is revising its reporting
process so that certain reports would no longer be routinely provided
to the Board but rather to the Audit and Business Risk Committees. The
Commission believes these changes would enhance the Liquidity Plan by
prioritizing reporting to the most relevant level. Additionally, ICE
Clear Europe is revising its procedures so that certain testing is done
on an annual rather than periodic basis, the Liquidity Plan is reviewed
by the Executive Risk Committee, and certain irrelevant risk default
scenarios have been removed. Overall, the Commission believes that
these changes will enable ICE Clear Europe to efficiently measure and
monitor its liquidity risk by ensuring that relevant scenarios are
reviewed by appropriate staff on a regular basis.
    As a result of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Rule 17Ad-
22(e)(7).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ICEEU-2018-015 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-ICEEU-2018-015. 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 filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation#rule-filing. 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-ICEEU-2018-015
and should be submitted on or before January 3, 2019.

V. Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment No. 1

    In its filing, ICE Clear Europe requested that the Commission grant
accelerated approval of the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.\18\ Under Section 19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the
Act,\19\ the Commission may grant accelerated approval of a proposed
rule change if the Commission finds good cause for doing so. ICE Clear
Europe believes that accelerated approval is warranted because the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is not expected
to change the rights or obligations of clearing members or other
persons using the clearing service or the terms or conditions of any
cleared contract. Accordingly, ICE Clear Europe does not believe that
any delay in implementing amendments with respect to such matters will
benefit clearing members, their customers or any other market
participants. Rather, ICE Clear Europe is seeking to enable the full
onboarding of additional treasury service providers as soon as
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act,\20\ for approving the proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis, prior
to the 30th day after the date of publication of notice in the Federal
Register, because the proposed rule change is required as soon as
possible in order to facilitate ICE Clear Europe's efforts to provide
further treasury services. The Commission also finds good cause to
approve the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, prior
to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of the notice of
Amendment No. 1 in the Federal Register. As discussed above, ICE Clear
Europe submitted Amendment No. 1 to make a technical change to the
Liquidity Plan. The Commission believes that Amendment No. 1 does not
raise any novel issues or alter the proposed changes in any way. In
addition, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as
modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Exchange Act and
applicable rules thereunder for the reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, the Commission finds good cause to approve the proposed
rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, on an accelerated basis,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 17A
of the Act,\21\ and Rule 17Ad-22(e)(7) \22\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.17Ad-22(e)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\23\ that the proposed rule change (File Number SR-ICEEU-2018-015), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \24\ In approving the proposed rule change, the Commission
considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26945 Filed 12-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 7, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75062-75063]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26543]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3587-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

Florida; Emergency and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of an
emergency for the State of Florida (FEMA-3587-EM), dated November 8,
2022, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued November 8, 2022.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated November 8, 2022, the President issued an emergency declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as
follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in certain areas
of the State of

Florida resulting from Tropical Storm Nicole beginning on November
7, 2022, and continuing, are of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant an emergency declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(``the Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such an emergency
exists in the State of Florida.
    You are authorized to provide appropriate assistance for
required emergency measures, authorized under Title V of the
Stafford Act, to save lives and to protect property and public
health and safety, and to lessen or avert the threat of a
catastrophe in the designated areas. Specifically, you are
authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. In order to provide Federal assistance, you are
hereby authorized to allocate from funds available for these
purposes such amounts as you find necessary for Federal emergency
assistance and administrative expenses.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, Department
of Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Thomas
J. McCool, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this declared emergency.
    The following areas of the State of Florida have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared emergency:

    Alachua, Bradford, Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Citrus, Clay,
Collier, Desoto, Dixie, Duval, Flagler, Gilchrist, Glades, Hardee,
Hendry, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, Jefferson,
Lake, Lee, Levy, Manatee, Marion, Martin, Miami-Dade, Nassau,
Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk,
Putnam, Sarasota, Seminole, St. Johns, St. Lucie, Sumter, Taylor,
Volusia, and Wakulla and the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
and the Seminole Tribe of Florida for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program.

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

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2022-26543 Filed 12-6-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67845-67847]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27597]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68174; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2012-118]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Increase the
Options Regulatory Fee and To Revise the Circumstances Under Which NYSE
Arca, Inc. Will Collect the Options Regulatory Fee

November 7, 2012.
    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 November 1, 2012, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to increase its Options Regulatory Fee
(``ORF'') and to revise the circumstances under which the Exchange will
collect the ORF. The text of the proposed rule change is available on
the Exchange's Web site 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to increase its ORF and to revise the
circumstances under which the Exchange will collect the ORF.
Background
    The ORF, which is currently $0.004 per contract, is assessed by the
Exchange on each OTP Holder or OTP Firm for all options transactions
executed or cleared by the OTP Holder or OTP Firm that are cleared by
The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') in the customer range, i.e.,
transactions that clear in the customer account of the OTP Holder's or
OTP Firm's clearing firm at OCC, regardless of the marketplace of
execution.\4\ In other words, the Exchange imposes the ORF on all
customer-range transactions executed by an OTP Holder or OTP Firm even
if the transactions do not take place on the Exchange. In the case
where an OTP Holder or OTP Firm executes a transaction and a different
OTP Holder or OTP Firm clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to
the OTP Holder or OTP Firm who executes the transaction. In the case
where a non-OTP Holder or non-OTP Firm executes a transaction and an
OTP Holder or OTP Firm clears the transaction, the ORF is assessed to
the OTP Holder or OTP Firm who clears the transaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64399 (May 4, 2011),
76 FR 27114 (May 10, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dues and fees paid by OTP Holders and OTP Firms go into the
general funds of the Exchange, a portion of which is used to help pay
the costs of regulation. In particular, the ORF is designed to recover
a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and
regulation of OTP Holder and OTP Firms, including performing routine
surveillance and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking,
interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange monitors the
amount of revenue collected from the ORF so that, in combination with
other regulatory fees and fines, it does not exceed regulatory costs.
The ORF is collected indirectly from OTP Holders and OTP Firms through
their clearing firms by OCC on behalf of the Exchange.
Proposed Change
    The Exchange proposes to (1) increase the ORF from $0.004 per
contract to

$0.005 per contract in order to recoup increased regulatory expenses
while also monitoring the revenue collected so that the ORF will not
exceed such expenses, and (2) revise the circumstances in which the
Exchange will collect the ORF from OTP Holders and OTP Firms.
Transaction volumes across the industry have declined, thereby reducing
ORF revenue, but the Exchange's regulatory expenses have not declined.
The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the proposed ORF,
when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will
cover a material portion, but not all, of the Exchange's regulatory
costs. The Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of revenue
collected from the ORF so that, in combination with the Exchange's
other regulatory fees and fines, it does not exceed regulatory costs.
If the Exchange determines that regulatory revenues exceed regulatory
costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a proposed rule
change to the Commission.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Exchange notes that its regulatory responsibilities with
respect to member compliance with options sales practice rules have
been allocated to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') under an SEC Rule 17d-2 agreement. The ORF is not
designed to cover the cost of options sales practice regulation. See
supra note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to revise the manner in which
it assesses the ORF. Currently, upon becoming an OTP Holder or OTP
Firm, a participant immediately becomes liable for the ORF. In certain
instances, particularly at the outset of becoming an OTP Holder or OTP
Firm, a participant may be registered with the Exchange prior to
obtaining the requisite technological certification needed to act as a
Floor Broker, Market Maker, Clearing Member or Order Flow Provider. The
Exchange believes that it is not equitable to assess the ORF on an OTP
Holder or OTP Firm that, prior to initially satisfying certain
technology requirements, is not capable of availing itself of the
benefits of its status as an OTP Holder or OTP Firm.\6\ The Exchange
does not desire to assess the ORF on such OTP Holders or OTP Firms
until they have satisfied applicable technological requirements
necessary to commence operations on the Exchange. The proposed change
will have no effect on the assessment of fees for current OTP Holders
or OTP Firms that are fully certified to transact business on the
Exchange, as described above. The Exchange notes that at least one
other exchange has such a provision for assessing the options
regulatory fee after satisfaction of applicable technology
requirements.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange anticipates that any delay in satisfying
applicable technological requirements necessary to commence
operations on the Exchange would be brief.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62804 (August 31,
2010), 75 FR 54688 (September 8, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-060).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues surrounding the ORF and that the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that OTP Holders and OTP Firms
would have in complying with the proposed change. The Exchange proposes
to implement these changes on December 1, 2012.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\8\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act,\9\ in particular, because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposal is reasonable because the
Exchange's revenue from the collection of the ORF has declined due to a
decrease in industry volume, but the Exchange's regulatory expenses
have not declined. As described above, through the ORF the Exchange
seeks to recover the costs of supervising and regulating OTP Holders
and OTP Firms, including performing routine surveillance and
investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and
enforcement activities. The proposed ORF increase will help to maintain
the total revenue collected to offset these regulatory expenses, but
would not exceed those regulatory costs. The Exchange further notes
that another options exchange has raised its options regulatory fee to
$0.0065 per contract, so the Exchange's proposed ORF of $0.005 per
contract will still be below that level.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67597 (August 6,
2012), 77 FR 47887 (August 10, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-065).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed ORF increase is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to
all OTP Holder and OTP Firms on all of their transactions that clear in
the customer range at OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the ORF
is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it results in fees
being charged to those OTP Holder and OTP Firms that require more
Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of customer options
business they conduct. In this regard, regulating customer trading
activity is more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of
human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading
activity. Surveillance and regulation of non-customer trading activity
generally tends to be more automated and less labor intensive. As a
result, the costs associated with administering the customer component
of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are anticipated to be
higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer
component of its regulatory program. As such, the Exchange proposes to
continue to assess the ORF to those OTP Holder and OTP Firms that will
require more Exchange regulatory services based on the amount of
customer options business they conduct.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The ORF is not charged for orders that clear in categories
other than the customer range (e.g., market maker orders) because
OTP Holders or OTP Firms incur the costs of acquiring trading
permits and through these permits are charged transaction fees, dues
and other fees that go into the general funds of the Exchange, a
portion of which is used to help pay the costs of regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the ORF will continue to be equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because the fee increase is objectively
allocated to all OTP Holders and OTP Firms. The only OTP Holders or OTP
Firms that would not pay the fee will be those that have not yet
achieved the technical certifications that are needed to actually begin
acting as a Floor Broker, Market Maker, Clearing Member or Order Flow
Provider on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that this exception is
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. Not assessing
the ORF on an OTP Holder or OTP Firm that is not yet able to act in the
capacity for which it is attempting to obtain certification is
reasonable because the OTP Holder or OTP Firm is not yet able to
generate the revenue associated with serving in that capacity. In this
respect, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to not begin
charging the ORF until the OTP Holder or OTP Firm can generate the
revenue to pay the fee. It is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it will apply in an objective manner to all
similarly situated OTP Holders and OTP Firms.
    As noted above, the Exchange will continue to monitor the amount of
revenue collected from the ORF so that, in combination with its other
regulatory fees and fines, it does not exceed regulatory costs. If the
Exchange determines that regulatory revenues

exceed regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting
a proposed rule change to the Commission.

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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)\12\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \13\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 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.

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-2012-118 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-118. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2012-118, and
should be submitted on or before December 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2012-27597 Filed 11-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 6)]
[Notices]
[Page 1425-1426]
[DOCID:fr11ja10-90]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61263; File No. SR-DTC-2009-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Revise Fee Schedule

December 30, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on December 24, 2009, the
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') 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
primarily by DTC. DTC filed the proposal pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \2\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(4) \3\ thereunder so
that the proposal was 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to revise fees for
certain DTC services.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B) and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    DTC proposes increasing certain existing service fees and
introducing fees associated with new service capabilities. Increased
fees are proposed for existing services related to Deposits, Custody
and Asset Servicing, Underwriting and Dividends, Book-Entry Delivery,
and Money Market Instruments. These changes are intended to realign the
fees with DTC's corresponding service costs, scale the fees to reflect
processing complexity, and create fee simplification and transparency.
    In addition, DTC will increase and implement certain disincentive
fees to discourage activities that increase industry inefficiencies.
This includes fee increases for reject processing services and for
exception processing related to Deposit and Withdrawal activities and
Custody. It also includes a new password reset fee.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The password reset fee would apply after an initial
allowance of two password resets at no cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New fees are proposed for recently-developed services related to
Underwriting, Deposits, and Reorganization. The new fees include an
Underwriting fee for Incomplete Eligibility Information and Older Issue
Eligibility, a Reorganization fee structure for Survivor Options, and a
new Long Position fee for issues with a large number of shares but low
market value.
    These proposed fee revisions are consistent with DTC's overall
pricing philosophy of aligning service fees with underlying costs,
discouraging manual and exception processing, and encouraging
immobilization and dematerialization of securities. The effective date
for these fee adjustments is January 4, 2010. The changes to DTC's Fee
Schedule can be found in Exhibit 5 to proposed rule change SR-DTC-2009-
19 at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2009/dtc/2009-
19.pdf.
    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\

and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to DTC because the
proposed rule change updates DTC's fee schedule and provides equitable
allocation of fees among its members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    DTC does not believe that the proposed rule change will have any
impact or impose any burden on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not yet
been solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any
written comments received by DTC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\ thereunder
because the proposed rule change is establishing or changing a due,
fee, or other charge applicable only to a member. At any time within
sixty days of the filing of such rule change, the Commission may
summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

     Electronic comments may be submitted by using the
Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml), or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-DTC-2009-19 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2009-19. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C 552, will be available for inspection and copying
in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
am and 3 pm. Copies of such filings also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and on DTC's Web
site at http://www.dtcc.com/downloads/legal/rule_filings/2009/dtc/
2009-19.pdf. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to file number SR-DTC-
2009-19 and should be submitted on or before February 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-188 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 59186]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23690]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Petition IV-2011-1; FRL-9734-2]

Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Petition for Objection to
State Operating Permit for Tennessee Valley Authority's Shawnee Fossil
Plant; McCracken County, KY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final order on petition to object to a state
operating permit.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 505(b)(2), the EPA
Administrator signed an Order, dated August 31, 2012, denying a
petition to object to a CAA title V operating permit issued by the
Kentucky Division for Air Quality (KDAQ) to Tennessee Valley Authority
for its Shawnee Fossil Plant (SFP) facility located in West Paducah,
Kentucky. This Order constitutes a final action on the petition dated
February 28, 2011, and submitted by the Environmental Integrity Project
and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (Petitioners). Pursuant to
sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the CAA, a petition for judicial
review of those parts of the Order that deny the petition may be filed
in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit
within 60 days from the date this notice is published in the Federal
Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Order, the petition, and information relating
thereto are on file at the following location: EPA Region 4; Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division; 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The Order is also available electronically
at the following address: http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/title5/petitiondb/petitions/shawnee_response2011.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Purvis, Air Permits Section, EPA
Region 4, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CAA affords the EPA a 45-day period to
review and, as appropriate, the authority to object to operating
permits proposed by state permitting authorities under title V of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7661-7661f. Section 505(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR
70.8(d) authorize any person to petition the EPA Administrator to
object to a title V operating permit within 60 days after the
expiration of the EPA's 45-day review period if the EPA has not
objected on its own initiative. Petitions must be based only on
objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity
during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the
petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise these issues
during the comment period or the grounds for the issues arose after
this period.
    Petitioners submitted a petition regarding SFP (received by the EPA
on March 1, 2011), requesting that the EPA object to the CAA title V
operating permit (V-09-002 R1). Petitioners alleged that the
permit was not consistent with the CAA for four primary reasons
described in the petition. On August 31, 2012, the Administrator issued
an Order denying the petition. In summary, the Petition was denied
because the EPA interprets its regulations to limit the scope of
petitions to object on permit revisions resulting from reopening for
cause. The scope of petitions to object is limited to issues related to
the parts of the permit for which the permitting authority has
determined that cause to reopen exists. Because the Petitioners'
objections apply to parts of the Shawnee Permit that are beyond the
scope of the reopening for cause resulting in Permit Revision 1, the
EPA is denying the Petition. The Order further explains the EPA's
rationale for denying the petition.

    Dated: September 17, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-23690 Filed 9-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


<EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER  (7/1/2007)>

<EPA Registration Division contact: [insert name and telephone number
with area code]>

<INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green, i.e., “[insert company
name],” with the information specific to your action.>

<TEMPLATE:>

<[Dow AgroSciences, LLC]>

<[Insert petition number]>

<	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from
[Dow AgroSciences, LLC], [9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN, 46268]
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 180.576.>

<(Options (pick one)>

<	1. to reestablish and make permanent tolerances for residues of>

<	[the combined residues of cyhalofop (cyhalofop-butyl,
R-(+)-n-butyl-2-(4(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionate, plus
cyhalofop acid, R-(+)-2-(4(4-cyano-2-fluorophenoxy)-phenoxy)propionic
acid) and the di-acid metabolite,
(2R)-4-[4-(1-carboxyethoxy)phenoxy]-3-fluorobenzoic acid] in or on the
raw agricultural commodity [Rice, grain] at [0.35] parts per million
(ppm) and [Rice, wild grain] at [0.35] ppm.  EPA has determined that the
petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth
in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated
the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before
EPA rules on the petition.>

<A. Residue Chemistry>

<	1. Plant metabolism. [The metabolism of cyhalofop-butyl in plants
(rice) is adequately understood for the purposes of a tolerance in rice.
 Two separate foliar broadcast 14C NOR studies have been conducted.
Results indicated cyhalofop-butyl was metabolized to cyhalofop (acid
form) and then subsequently to the free and conjugated forms of the
di-acid and the FHPBA.  Other minor metabolites were also identified.
In addition, the rotational crop study showed no carryover of
significant cyhalofop-butyl related residues in representative crops.]>

<	2. Analytical method. [An adequate analytical method is available for
enforcement purposes; the method has been developed and validated to
determine the residues of cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop (acid form) and the
di-acid metabolite in rice grain, straw and processed products.  The
method was based on capillary gas chromatography with mass selective
detection.  Limits of detection were 0.005 or 0.006 ppm depending on the
analyte and matrix.]>

<	3. Magnitude of residues. [The existing MOR work in rice was conducted
as 18 field trials in 1998 in the major rice-growing regions of the US.
Clincher* herbicide (formulation XRM-5151) was applied as a foliar
broadcast to established rice plants at proposed maximum label rates.
Samples were analyzed for cyhalofop-butyl, cyhalofop-acid and the
di-acid metabolite via GC/MSD using method GRM 99.06 with a limit of
detection (LOD) of 0.005 ug/g.  No residues were detected in a majority
of the grain samples.  Residues in the grain ranged from ND to 0.02 ppm.
 Residues in the straw ranges from 0.02 to 6.14 ppm.  Within the
processing study conducted at ~ 5X the application rate, no detectable
residues were noted for grain, bran and polished rice.

Six more residue trials were also conducted in 2009 in the major rice
growing areas of the country to provide updated residue data. Residues
of cyhalofop-butyl and metabolites in   DOCVARIABLE  Cr1lc  \*
MERGEFORMAT    DOCVARIABLE  Cr2lc  \* MERGEFORMAT  grain and rice straw
were determined by LC/MS/MS after two postemergent applications of
GF-2112 or NAF-541 at a total rate of 0.47 lb ai/A.  After treatments,
cyhalofop acid residues in rice grain and straw ranged from
non-detectable to 0.022 µg/g and from non-detectable to 0.788 µg/g,
respectively.  Cyhalofop diacid residues in rice grain and straw ranged
from non-detectable to 0.265 µg/g and from 0.564 to 3.33 µg/g,
respectively, after treatment with NAF-541.

These studies are also supporting uses in wild rice varieties for the
minor use of cyhalofop in or on wild rice. Cultural practices and pest
problems are similar such that rice data can be used for bridging data
to wild rice.]

B. Toxicological Profile [The toxicological profile and endpoints for
cyhalofop-butyl which support this petition and tolerances were
previously published in the Federal Register of June 4, 2002 (67
FRL-7178-5).  The relevant information is summarized below.]>

<	1. Acute toxicity.  [No appropriate endpoint attributable to a single
dose was identified; the EPA has not established an acute RfD for
cyhalofop-butyl.]>

<	2. Genotoxicty. [No evidence of genetic toxicity was observed when
cyhalofop-butyl was tested in a battery of in vitro and in vivo tests.]>

<	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Cyhalofop-butyl did not
have any effects on reproductive parameters at dose levels that induced
treatment-related effects in parental rats.  In addition, no teratogenic
potential was demonstrated in either rats or rabbits at dose levels that
induced maternal toxicity.]>

<	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Sub-chronic studies on cyhalofop-butyl have
been conducted and reviewed.  No endpoint was established for dermal
exposure because no systemic effects were observed in the 21-day dermal
study in the rat at doses up to 1000 mg/kg/day.  A short-term incidental
NOAEL of 4.3 mg/kg/day was selected as endpoint based on subchronic
feeding study in mice; this endpoint was also designated as conservative
surrogate for inhalation exposures.  However, for the review of a
tolerance, no short-term oral, dermal or inhalation exposures are
considered.]>

<	5. Chronic toxicity. [A chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.01
mg/kg/day has been established based on the 18-month feeding study in
mice and the application of an uncertainty factor of 100 (10X for
interspecies extrapolation and 10X for intra-species variation).  A 1X
FQPA safety factor was applied to the chronic endpoint.  Thus in the
case of cyhalofop-butyl, the cPAD = cRfD = 0.01 mg/kg/day.

At the time of initial registration, the carcinogencity studies in rats
and mice showed no evidence of a tumorigenic response.  But the agency
also concluded the original studies did not reach a maximum tolerated
dose and deemed them inadequate to assess carcinogenic potential
(Federal Register of June 4, 2002 (67 FRL-7178-5).  The agency recently
reviewed additional information on peroxisome proliferation and the lack
of human relevance for liver tumors formed by this mode of action.  Per
HED Memorandum TXR: 0054798 dated December 20, 2007 and in accordance
with the EPA Final Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (March 29,
2005) the EPA has now has classified cyhalofop-butyl as “Not Likely to
Be Carcinogenic to Humans”.

At the time of registration, the agency created a holding time for water
based on the original uncertainty for cancer classification coupled with
estimates of drinking water concentrations using a modified GENEEC
approach for rice paddies and SCI-GROW.  A 7-day holding time was
established to allow estimated concentrations of cyhalofop-butyl to fall
below 0.15 ppb.  Based on the recent cancer reclassification and Table 6
of the June 4, 2002 Final Rule for Cyhalofop-butyl; Time-Limited
Pesticide Tolerance, the 7-day holding time is not needed.]>

<	6. Animal metabolism. [Oral administration of cyhalofop-butyl, results
in rapid absorption, metabolism and excretion in the dog and rat.  The
butyl ester form is rapidly hydrolyzed to the acid form (cyhalofop) with
no significant quantities of unchanged parent in the plasma, tissues or
excreta.]>

<	7. Metabolite toxicology. [In all matrices (animal, plant,
environmental), cyhalofop-butyl is rapidly metabolized to the acid form,
cyhalofop.  Hence mammalian toxicity studies inherently include the acid
metabolite as part of the study.  Plant studies have identified the
di-acid as a major metabolite; the di-acid is more polar, and less lipid
soluble and is expected to be less toxic than the parent.]>

<	8. Endocrine disruption. [No evidence from any of the studies
indicates cyhalofop-butyl is an endocrine disrupter.]>

<C. Aggregate Exposure>

<	1. Dietary exposure. [Chronic exposure resulting from agricultural use
of cyhalofop-butyl on rice has been assessed for the US population and
sub-populations.  The dietary assessment model DEEM-FCID version 2.16
was employed.  It estimates US consumption patterns based on the
Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) and EPA/USDA
translation recipes from August 2002.  An estimate of the residue level
in each food (e.g., water or rice) is multiplied by the average daily
consumption estimate for that food.  The resulting residue consumption
estimate for each food is summed to determine the total estimated
exposure.  Exposure estimates are expressed in mg/kg body weight/day and
compared to the cPAD.]

>

<	i. Food. [For cyhalofop-butyl, a DEEM residue file for a Tier I
dietary assessment was prepared using the 0.35 ppm proposed tolerance
for “Rice, grain”, “Rice, wild, grain”, for rice.  The exposure
was assessed against a cPAD = cRfD = 0.01 mg/kg/day.  The assessment
assumes that all commodities with cyhalofop-butyl tolerances (i.e., rice
and wild rice) contain residues of cyhalofop-butyl at the tolerance
level.

Results indicate exposure to cyhalofop-butyl residues is very low and
represents less than 2.9 % of the cRfD for all subpopulations.]>

<	ii. Drinking water. [The estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) used in the dietary risk assessment were provided by the
Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED). The EDWC was
incorporated directly into this dietary assessment into the food
categories “water, direct, all sources” and “water, indirect, all
sources.”

Dietary and water exposure were chronically assessed against the cRfD of
0.01 mg/kg/day.  All subpopulations have exposure estimates of < 20.9%
cPAD.]>

<	2. Non-dietary exposure. [There are no residential uses for this
compound.]>

<D. Cumulative Effects>

<	[For purposes of this tolerance petition, no assumption of a common
mechanism of toxicity for cyhalofop-butyl with other substances has been
made.]>

<E. Safety Determination []. >

<	1. U.S. population. [Based on the dietary and water exposure
assessments, chronic dietary exposure to cyhalofop-butyl from registered
uses in rice plus drinking water will utilize <20.9% of the cRfD for the
U. S. population.  Exposures below 100% of the cRfD are typically below
the EPA’s level of concern because the chronic RfD represents the
level at or below which daily dietary exposures over a lifetime will not
pose appreciable risks to human health.]>

<	2. Infants and children. [Per Federal Register of June 4, 2002 (67
FRL-7178-5), EPA has previously determined that an FQPA safety factor of
1X is applicable to all population subgroups for cyhalofop-butyl.  The
major identifiable subgroup with the highest chronic dietary exposure is
“non-nursing infants” with exposure to estimated residues of <21 %
of the cPAD.  Dow AgroSciences concludes with reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to infants and children from the aggregate exposure
to cyhalofop-butyl residues from registered and proposed uses.]>

<F. International Tolerances>

<	[A review of national websites and the Homologa MRL database indicates
several values have been set for cyhalofop in rice globally.  The
proposed US value of 0.35 ppm in rice is higher than values in Europe
and Latin America, and most of the Pacific.  No MRLs were noted by
Codex.

Argentina, Brazil, Australia, Turkey	Rice	0.01	PPM

EU and various individual member states	Rice	0.02	PPM

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan	Rice	0.1	PPM

]>

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 95 (Monday, May 18, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28175-28176]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11929]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0240]
RIN 1625-AA08

Eighth Coast Guard District Annual Special Local Regulation; REV3
Triathlon; Tennessee River 646.0-649.0; Knoxville, TN

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a Special Local Regulation for
the ``REV3 Triathlon'' on the Tennessee River mile 646.0 to 649.0 from
7:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2015. This action is necessary for
the safeguard of participants and spectators, including all crews,
vessels, and persons on navigable waters during the ``REV3 Triathlon.''
During the enforcement period, entry into, transiting or anchoring in
the Regulated Area is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the
sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels, unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Ohio Valley or his
designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 1 Sector Ohio Valley,
No. 4 will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on May 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of enforcement, call Petty Officer Chad Phillips, Coast Guard Marine
Safety Detachment Nashville at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the Special
Local Regulation for the annual ``REV3 Triathlon'' listed in 33 CFR
100.801 Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 4 on May 17, 2015 from 7:00
a.m. until 9:30 a.m.
    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.801, entry into the regulated
area listed in Table 1, Sector Ohio Valley, No. 4 is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.
Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the Special
Local Regulation area must request permission from the Captain of the
Port or his designated representative. If permission is granted, all
persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Captain
of the Port or his designated representative.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a), and 33
U.S.C. 1233. In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advance
notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners
and Marine Information Broadcasts.
    If the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley or his Patrol Commander
determines that the Special Local Regulation need not be enforced for
the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he or she may
use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant permission to enter the
regulated area.

    Dated: April 22, 2015.
R.V. Timme,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2015-11929 Filed 5-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P