[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31436-31438]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0617; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of VOR Federal Airway V-573 and Area
Navigation (RNAV) Route T-398 in the Vicinity of Sulphur Springs, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)
Federal airway V-573 and Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-398. The FAA is
proposing this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR
portion of the Sulphur Springs, TX (SLR), VOR/Distance Measuring
Equipment (VOR/DME) navigational aid (NAVAID). The Sulphur Springs VOR
is being decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational
Network (MON) program.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0617; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-4 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would modify the National Airspace System (NAS) as
necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2022-0617; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-4) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0617; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASW-4.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Central
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 10101 Hillwood
Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,

air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

Background

    The FAA is planning to decommission the Sulphur Springs, TX, VOR in
February 2023. The Sulphur Springs VOR was one of the candidate VORs
identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed
in the Final policy statement notice, ``Provision of Navigation
Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen)
Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing
a VOR Minimum Operational Network),'' published in the Federal Register
of July 26, 2016 (81 FR 48694), Docket No. FAA-2011-1082.
    Although the VOR portion of the Sulphur Springs VOR/DME is planned
for decommissioning, the co-located DME portion of the NAVAID is being
retained to support NextGen PBN flight procedure requirements.
    The ATS routes affected by the Sulphur Springs VOR decommissioning
are VOR Federal airway V-573 and RNAV route T-398. The V-573 airway is
affected directly with the Sulphur Springs VOR being included in the
route description. However, the T-398 route is a mitigation to address
the proposed loss of the V-573 airway segment affected by the planned
Sulphur Springs VOR decommissioning. With the planned decommissioning
of the Sulphur Springs VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage
in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of V-573. As such,
modifications to the airway would result in creating a gap in the
airway.
    To overcome the airway gap in V-573, instrument flight rules (IFR)
traffic could use portions of adjacent VOR Federal airways V-16, V-124,
and V-278 to circumnavigate the affected area, or receive air traffic
control (ATC) radar vectors to fly through the affected area.
Additionally, IFR pilots equipped with RNAV capabilities could file and
navigate point to point using the existing fixes that would remain in
place, or could use the T-398 route extension proposed in this action,
to support continued operations though the affected area. Visual flight
rules (VFR) pilots who elect to navigate via the affected ATS routes
could also take advantage of the adjacent ATS routes or ATC services
listed previously.
    As noted above, the FAA proposes to extend RNAV route T-398 between
the RRORY, TX, waypoint (WP) being established near the Bonham, TX,
VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) and the existing SLOTH, TX, WP
located near the Texarkana, AR, VORTAC. The proposed T-398 route
extension would overlay the V-573 airway segment between the Bonham
VORTAC and the Texarkana VORTAC and, in part, mitigate the proposed
removal of the V-573 airway segment between those NAVAIDs. The new T-
route extension would provide airspace users equipped with RNAV
capabilities an enroute structure between the Bonham, TX, area eastward
to the Pinehurst, NC, area. Further, the extended T-398 route would
support the FAA's NextGen efforts to modernize the NAS navigation
system from a ground-based system to a satellite-based system.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR
Federal airway V-573 and RNAV route T-398 due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Sulphur Springs, TX (SLR),
VOR/DME. The proposed ATS route actions are described below.
    V-573: V-573 currently extends between the Will Rogers, OK, VORTAC
and the Little Rock, AR, VORTAC. The FAA proposes to remove the airway
segment overlying the Sulphur Springs VOR/DME between the Bonham, TX,
VORTAC and the Texarkana, AR, VORTAC. The unaffected portions of the
existing airway would remain as charted.
    T-398: T-398 currently extends between the SLOTH, TX, WP, and the
GMINI, NC, WP. The FAA proposes to extend the route further westward
between the RRORY, TX, WP being established near the Bonham, TX, VORTAC
and the SLOTH, TX, WP. The added RNAV route segment would overlay the
V-573 airway segment proposed for removal between the Bonham, TX,
VORTAC and Texarkana, AR, VORTAC noted above. The full route legal
description is listed in ``The Proposed Amendment'' section, below. The
unaffected portions of the existing route would remain as charted.
    All NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway description
below are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-
routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated
August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this
document would be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures,'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-573 [Amended]

    From Will Rogers, OK; INT Will Rogers 195[deg] and Ardmore, OK,
327[deg] radials; Ardmore; to Bonham, TX. From Texarkana,

AR; INT Texarkana 037[deg] and Hot Springs, AR, 225[deg] radials;
Hot Springs; to Little Rock, AR.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-398 RRORY, TX to GMINI, NC [Amended]

RRORY, TX               WP                     (Lat. 33[deg]32'14.95'' N, long. 096[deg]14'03.45'' W)
MERIC, TX               WP                     (Lat. 33[deg]11'54.97'' N, long. 095[deg]32'32.66'' W)
SLOTH, TX               WP                     (Lat. 33[deg]30'49.99'' N, long. 094[deg]04'24.38'' W)
MUFRE, AR               FIX                    (Lat. 34[deg]05'31.32'' N, long. 093[deg]10'43.80'' W)
LITTR, AR               WP                     (Lat. 34[deg]40'39.90'' N, long. 092[deg]10'49.26'' W)
EMEEY, AR               WP                     (Lat. 34[deg]34'30.29'' N, long. 090[deg]40'27.14'' W)
GOINS, MS               WP                     (Lat. 34[deg]46'12.64'' N, long. 089[deg]29'46.81'' W)
HAGIE, AL               WP                     (Lat. 34[deg]42'25.87'' N, long. 087[deg]29'29.76'' W)
FILUN, AL               WP                     (Lat. 34[deg]47'50.14'' N, long. 086[deg]38'01.14'' W)
JILIS, GA               WP                     (Lat. 34[deg]57'23.98'' N, long. 085[deg]08'03.46'' W)
CRAND, GA               FIX                    (Lat. 34[deg]57'28.88'' N, long. 084[deg]51'20.59'' W)
BALNN, GA               WP                     (Lat. 34[deg]56'34.20'' N, long. 083[deg]54'56.42'' W)
BURGG, SC               WP                     (Lat. 35[deg]02'00.55'' N, long. 081[deg]55'36.86'' W)
GAFFE, SC               FIX                    (Lat. 35[deg]05'38.90'' N, long. 081[deg]33'23.92'' W)
CRLNA, NC               WP                     (Lat. 35[deg]12'49.48'' N, long. 080[deg]56'57.32'' W)
LOCAS, NC               FIX                    (Lat. 35[deg]12'05.18'' N, long. 080[deg]26'44.89'' W)
RELPY, NC               FIX                    (Lat. 35[deg]12'45.70'' N, long. 079[deg]47'28.76'' W)
GMINI, NC               WP                     (Lat. 35[deg]12'23.01'' N, long. 079[deg]34'01.98'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 18, 2022.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2022-11013 Filed 5-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 30)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8250]
[DOCID:fr13fe08-24]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 138

[Docket No. USCG-2005-21780]
RIN 1625-AA98

Financial Responsibility for Water Pollution (Vessels) and OPA 90
Limits of Liability (Vessels and Deepwater Ports); Correction

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard published in the Federal Register of February
5, 2008, a notice of proposed rulemaking which, among other things,
would amend the regulatory requirements for vessel operators to
establish and maintain evidence of financial responsibility. That
document contained an incorrect effective date and was also unclear.
This document corrects the preamble and regulatory text to the proposed
rule to clarify the effective date and the distinction between the
financial responsibility applicable amounts and limits of liability.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before May 5, 2008. Comments sent to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) on collection of information must reach OMB
on or before May 5, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2005-21780 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You must also send comments on collection of information to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget. To ensure that the comments are received on time, the preferred
method is by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>. An
alternate, though slower, method is by U.S. mail to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S.
Coast Guard.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Benjamin White, National Pollution Funds Center, Coast
Guard, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard published an NPRM in the
Federal Register of February 5, 2008, (73 FR 6642) which, among other
things, proposed amending the regulatory requirements for vessel
operators to establish and maintain evidence of financial
responsibility. That document contained an incorrect effective date and
was also unclear. This document corrects the preamble and regulatory
text to the proposed rule to clarify the effective date and the
distinction between the financial responsibility applicable amounts of
Sec.  138.80(f) and limits of liability in proposed Subpart B.
    In FR Doc. E8-1516, appearing on page 6642 in the Federal Register
of Tuesday, February 5, 2008, the following corrections are made:

Preamble [Corrected]

    1. On page 6645, in the third column, after the reference to
Section 138.85, remove the paragraph that states: ``This new section of
the proposed rule would establish an implementation schedule that would
apply to the increased applicable amounts in Subpart B of this proposed
rule, and whenever the financial responsibility applicable amounts
under Subpart B are amended by regulation. This would occur in
instances including, but not limited to, future regulatory changes
mandated by statute, and when the limits of liability in proposed
subpart B of this Part are amended to reflect significant increases in
the Consumer Price Index pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 2704(d)(4).'' and add,
in its place, the following paragraph: ``This new section of the
proposed rule would establish an implementation schedule that would
apply to the increased applicable amounts referenced in 138.80(f) of
this proposed rule, and whenever the financial responsibility
applicable amounts under Sec.  138.80(f) are amended by regulation.
This would occur in instances including, but not limited to, future
regulatory changes mandated by statute, and when the limits of
liability in proposed subpart B of this Part are amended to reflect
significant increases in the Consumer Price Index pursuant to 33 U.S.C.
2704(d)(4).''

Sec.  138.85  [Corrected]

    2. On page 6654 in the first column, revise the proposed regulatory
text for proposed Sec.  138.85 to read as follows:

Sec.  138.85  Implementation Schedule

    The effective date of the applicable amounts referenced in Sec.
138.80(f) of this part will be [INSERT DATE 120 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register]. In the event an applicable
amount referenced in Sec.  138.80(f) is thereafter amended by
regulation, the effective date of the amended applicable amount will be
120 days after publication of a final rule in the Federal Register,
unless another date is required by statute and specified in the
amending regulation. Each operator of a vessel described in Sec.
138.15, must have established, on or before the effective date of the
applicable amount including any amendments thereto, evidence of
financial responsibility acceptable to the Director, NPFC, in an amount
equal to or greater than the total applicable amount.''

    Dated: February 7, 2008.
William Grawe,
Acting Director, National Pollution Funds Center, United States Coast
Guard.
[FR Doc. E8-2685 Filed 2-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Appendix H, Page 1 of 6 Appendix H: Dermal Toxicity Estimation In the March 2000 SAP for the implementation of probabilistic risk assessments, one question posed to the panel concerned dermal toxicity estimation. The SAP was concerned about the potential approach of applying the ratio of oral to dermal toxicity from mammals to birds. A limited set of data exists for evaluating the relationship between dermal toxicity and oral toxicity in birds ( Table H 1). Definitive oral and dermal LD 50' s are available for 42 individual studies. These studies were conducted across a variety of species and several classes of chemicals.

Regression analysis was used to predict the dermal LD 50 based on the oral LD 50. In addition, pesticide chemical properties were included into the regression model in an attempt to improve the model fit, similar to the approach taken by Mineau ( 2002). Prior to regression analysis, the dermal LD 50 data and the oral LD 50 data to were transformed to the log base10 scale to better meet assumptions of normality and homogeneous variance.

In the log transformed scale, the correlation coefficient between the dermal and oral LD 50 values was 0.55 ( Figure H 1). The correlation coefficients between dermal LD 50 and the evaluated chemical properties were much lower:  0.11,  0.03, and  0.03 for molecular weight ( MW), density, and molecular volume ( MV), respectively.

Figure H 1. Plot of dermal LD 50 values vs. oral LD 50 values in log base 10 scale. The correlation coefficient was 0.55. Appendix H, Page 2 of 6 log . . * log DermalLD OralLD 50 50 084 0 62 = +

standard errors: ( 0.14) ( 0.15) A summary of the evaluated regression models is provided in Table H 2. This analysis indicates that the addition of these chemical properties into the regression model do not significantly improve its predictive ability. The adjusted R square ( a modified R square with a correction for the number of parameters included in the model) ranged between 0.2575 and 0.2857, indicating little difference in the predictive ability among the fitted models. The best fitting model to predict dermal LD 50 was one based solely on oral LD 50:

The p value for the slope was 0.0002 and the R square was 0.30. The chemical properties that were included did not provide significant improvement in the predictive ability of the model. Appendix H, Page 3 of 6 Table H 1: Raw Data from Regression Analysis of Avian Dermal LD50 and Oral LD50 Compound Class Species Oral LD50 ( mg/ kg) Dermal LD50 ( mg/ kg) Footnotea Molecular Weight Density Molar Volume ( mol/ cm3)

Aldicarb Carbamate Mallard 3.4 60.0 1 190.26 1.195 159.21 Carbofuran Carbamate House sparrow 1.3 100.0 2 221.26 1.18 187.51 Carbofuran Carbamate Quelea 0.42 100.0 2 221.26 1.18 187.51 Coumaphos OP House sparrow 10 75.0 2 362.80 1.47 246.80 Coumaphos OP Quelea 3.2 7.5 2 362.80 1.47 246.80 Demeton OP Mallard 7.19 24 1 258.34 1.18 218.93 Demeton OP House sparrow 5.6 13.0 2 258.34 1.18 218.93 Demeton OP Quelea 1.3 1.8 2 258.34 1.18 218.93 Dicrotophos OP Mallard 4.24 14.2 1 237.19 1.216 195.06 Dicrotophos OP House sparrow 4.2 1.8 2 237.19 1.216 195.06 Dicrotophos OP Quelea 1.3 1.3 2 237.19 1.216 195.06 Disulfoton OP Mallard 6.54 192.0 1 274.39 1.144 239.85 Disulfoton OP Starling 133 13.3 3 274.39 1.144 239.85 Disulfoton OP Red winged Blackbird 3.2 1.00 3, 4 274.39 1.144 239.85 Endrin OChl Mallard 5.64 > 140.0b 1 380.93 1.7 224.08 EPN OP Mallard 7.09 400.0 1 323.31 1.3 248.70 Ethoprop OP Mallard 12.6 10.6 1 242.3 1.094 221.48 Fenamiphos OP Mallard 1.68 23.8 1 303.36 1.15 263.79 Fenitrothion OP Mallard 1190 504.0 1 277.23 1.33 208.44 Fensulfothion OP Mallard 0.749 2.86 1 308.35 1.202 256.53 Fensulfothion OP House sparrow 0.32 1.00 2 308.35 1.202 256.53 Compound Class Species Oral LD50 ( mg/ kg) Dermal LD50 ( mg/ kg) Footnotea Molecular Weight Density Molar Volume ( mol/ cm3)

Appendix H, Page 4 of 6 Fensulfothion OP Quelea 0.24 0.42 2 308.35 1.202 256.53 Fenthion OP Mallard 5.94 44.0 1 278.32 1.25 222.66 Fenthion OP House sparrow 5.6 2.40 2 278.32 1.25 222.66 Fenthion OP Quelea 1.3 1.80 2 278.32 1.25 222.66 Methamidophos OP Starling 10.0 17.8 3 141.13 1.343 105.09 Methamidophos OP Red winged Blackbird 1.73 31.6 3 141.13 1.343 105.09 Methiocarb Carbamate House sparrow 18 > 100.0b 2 225.31 0.6 375.52 Methiocarb Carbamate Quelea 4.2 100.0 2 225.31 0.6 375.52 Methyl parathion OP Mallard 60.5 53.6 1 263.21 1.358 193.82 Mevinphos OP Mallard 4.63 11.1 1 224.15 1.25 179.32 Monocrotophos OP Mallard 4.76 30.0 1 223.17 1.3 171.67 Monocrotophos OP House sparrow 1.3 18.0 2 223.17 1.3 171.67 Monocrotophos OP Quelea 1.3 4.2 2 223.17 1.3 171.67 Paraquat Dichloride Bipyridinium Mallard 199 600.0 1 257.20 1.25 205.76 Parathion OP Mallard 2.34 28.3 1 291.26 1.267 229.88 Parathion OP House sparrow 1.3 1.8 2 291.26 1.267 229.88 Parathion OP Quelea 1.8 1.8 2 291.26 1.267 229.88 Phorate OP Mallard 2.55 203.0 1 260.38 1.167 223.12 Phosfolan OP House sparrow 2.4 18.0 2 255.28 1.3 196.37 Phosfolan OP Quelea 1.8 10.0 2 255.28 1.3 196.37 Phosphamidon OP Mallard 3.81 26.0 1 299.69 1.2132 247.02 TEPP OP Mallard 3.56 64.0 1 290.20 1.2 241.83 Compound Class Species Oral LD50 ( mg/ kg) Dermal LD50 ( mg/ kg) Footnotea Molecular Weight Density Molar Volume ( mol/ cm3)

Appendix H, Page 5 of 6 Thionazin OP Mallard 1.68 7.07 1 248.26 1.207 205.68 Footnotes:

1 Hudson, R. H., M. A. Haegele, and R. K. Tucker. 1979. Acute oral and percutaneous toxicity of pesticides to mallards:

Correlations with mammalian toxicity data. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 47: 451 460.

2 Schafer, E. W., R. B Brunton, N. F. Lockyer, and J. W. DeGrazio. 1973. Comparative toxicity of seventeen pesticides to the quelea, house sparrow, and redwing blackbird. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 26: 154 157.

3 Schafer, E. W. 1984. MRID 00146286 4 Schaefer, E. W. 1972. The acute oral toxicity of 369 pesticidal, pharmaceutical, and other chemicals to wild birds. Toxicol.

Appl. Pharmacol. 21: 315 330.

b Data value was censored ( 50% mortality not obtained at highest dose) and was not used in the statistical analysis. Appendix H, Page 6 of 6 Table H 2. Summary of fitted regression models to predict dermal LD50 from oral LD50 and the chemical properties molecular weight ( MW), density, and molecular volume ( MV).

Model Included Dependent Variables Adjusted R square Variables with p value < 0.25 1 Logoral, MW, density, MV 0.2575 Logoral 2 Logoral, MW, density 0.2678 Logoral 3 Logoral, MW, MV 0.2741 Logoral 4 Logoral, density, MV 0.2634 Logoral 5 Logoral, MW 0.2812 Logoral 6 Logoral, density 0.2762 Logoral 7 Logoral, MV 0.2677 Logoral 8 Logoral 0.2857 Logoral Literature Cited Mineau, Pierre. 2002 Estimating the probability of bird mortality from pesticide sprays on the basis of the field study record.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 21: 1497 1506.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 203 (Monday, October 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58972-58975]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23139]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-93381; File No. SR-MEMX-2021-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MEMX LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Billing
Errors Policy and Enable the Exchange To Agree to Alternative Payment
Instructions for the Exchange's Direct Debit Collection Process

October 19, 2021.
    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 October 12, 2021, MEMX LLC (``MEMX'' 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
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change
to amend Exchange Rule 15.3 to: (a) Adopt a policy relating to billing
errors that is substantially similar to the policy adopted by another
group of exchanges; (b) enable the Exchange, upon request, to permit a
member of the Exchange (``Member'') or applicant for registration as
such to provide alternative payment instructions (i.e., other than a
National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') clearing account
number, as currently required by Exchange Rule 15.3(a)) for purposes of
the Exchange's direct debit process for the collection of fees and
other monies due and owing to the Exchange; and (c) add paragraph
headings and relocate certain existing text within the Rule. The text
of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.

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
Billing Errors Policy
    The Exchange is proposing to adopt a policy relating to billing
errors. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt a new paragraph
(c) in Rule 15.3 entitled, ``Billing Errors,'' which would provide that
all fees and rebates assessed by the Exchange prior to the three full
calendar months before the month in which the Exchange becomes aware of
a billing error shall be considered final. Particularly, the Exchange
would resolve such an error by crediting or debiting affected Members
and non-Member customers of the Exchange (``Non-Members'') based on the
fees or rebates that should have been applied in the three full
calendar months preceding the month in which the Exchange became aware
of the error, including to all impacted transactions that occurred
during those months.\3\ The Exchange would apply the three month look
back regardless of whether the error was discovered by the Exchange or
by a Member or Non-Member that submitted a pricing dispute.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that the current policy in Rule 15.3(b),
which states that all pricing disputes must be submitted no later
than sixty (60) days after receipt of a billing invoice, will remain
in place.
    \4\ For example, if the Exchange becomes aware of a transaction
fee billing error on June 4, 2021, the Exchange will resolve the
error by crediting or debiting Members and Non-Members based on the
fees or rebates that should have been applied to any impacted
transactions during March, April and May 2021. The Exchange notes
that because it bills in arrears, the Exchange would be able to
correct the error in advance of issuing the June 2021 invoice, and
therefore, transactions impacted after the end of the last full
calendar month through the date of discovery (in this example, after
May 31, 2021 through June 4, 2021), and thereafter, would be billed
correctly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposed change is to provide both the Exchange
and its Members and Non-Members finality with respect to fees and
rebates previously assessed by the Exchange and the ability to close
their books after a specified time period. The Exchange notes that Rule
15.3(b) already requires that pricing disputes must be submitted to the
Exchange in writing and accompanied by supporting documentation no
later than 60 days after receipt of a billing invoice, which

is designed to encourage prompt review of Exchange invoices so that any
pricing disputes can be addressed in a timely manner. The Exchange
believes the proposed change would further the goal of addressing
billing discrepancies in a timely manner while the information and data
underlying those charges (e.g., applicable fees and order information)
is still easily and readily available, without further limiting the
timeframe in which a pricing dispute may be submitted. This practice
would avoid issues that may arise when billing errors are discovered
long after they occurred and the parties have already prepared, and in
some cases published, their books, and would conserve Exchange
resources that would have to be expended to resolve untimely billing
disputes. As such, the proposed rule change would alleviate
administrative burdens related to prior billing errors, which could
divert Exchange staff resources away from the Exchange's regulatory and
business purposes.
    The Exchange notes that the language of proposed Rule 15.3(c) is
substantially similar to language included in the fee schedules of the
four Cboe U.S. equities exchanges--Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe
BZX''),\5\ Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe BYX''),\6\ Cboe EDGA
Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe EDGA''),\7\ and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe
EDGX'').\8\ The Exchange also notes that a number of other exchanges
have explicitly stated that they consider all fees to be final after a
similar period of time.\9\ The proposed billing errors policy would
apply to all fees and rebates assessed by the Exchange. Finally, the
Exchange notes that the proposed billing errors policy is not intended
to circumvent or supersede any audit process with respect to the
Exchange's market data offering, which is intended to ensure that
market data recipients are in compliance with the terms of the
applicable market data subscriber agreement. Thus, the proposed billing
errors policy would not apply to, or otherwise affect the Exchange's or
any market data recipient's ability to take a position with respect to,
any fees identified through any such audit conducted by the
Exchange.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Cboe BZX equities trading fee schedule on its public
website (available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
90897 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR 4161 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-
2020-094).
    \6\ See Cboe BYX equities trading fee schedule on its public
website (available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/byx/). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
90899 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR 4156 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeBYX-
2020-034).
    \7\ See Cboe EDGA equities trading fee schedule on its public
website (available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edga/). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
90897 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR 4161 (January 15, 2021) (SR-CboeBZX-
2020-094).
    \8\ See Cboe EDGX equities trading fee schedule on its public
website (available at https://www.cboe.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
90901 (January 11, 2021), 86 FR 4137 (January 15, 2021) (SR-
CboeEDGX-2020-064).
    \9\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-91836 (May
11, 2021), 86 FR 26765 (May 17, 2021) (SR-BOX-2021-08); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 87650 (December 3, 2019), 84 FR 67304
(December 9, 2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-024); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 84430 (October 16, 2018), 83 FR 53347 (October 22, 2018)
(SRNYSENAT-2018-23); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79060
(October 6, 2016), 81 FR 70716 (October 13, 2016) (SR-ISEGemini-
2016-11).
    \10\ The Exchange notes that it does not currently charge any
fees for its market data, and therefore does not currently conduct
audits of market data recipients, but may do so in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Payment Instructions for Direct Debit
    The Exchange is also proposing to amend Rule 15.3(a) to enable the
Exchange, upon request, to permit a Member or applicant for
registration as such to provide alternative payment instructions (i.e.,
other than an NSCC clearing account number, as currently required by
Rule 15.3(a)) for purposes of the Exchange's direct debit process for
the collection of fees and other monies due and owing to the Exchange.
Specifically, the proposed rule change would provide that the Exchange
will, upon request, waive the current requirement in Rule 15.3(a) for a
Member or applicant for registration as such to provide an NSCC
clearing account number and instead require such Member or applicant to
provide alternative payment instructions as agreed to by the Exchange
for purposes of permitting the Exchange to debit any of the fees,
fines, charges and/or other monetary sanctions or other monies due and
owing to the Exchange listed in Rule 15.3(a). The proposed rule change
would further provide that the Exchange reserves the right to require
any such Member or applicant to provide an NSCC clearing account number
for such purposes if the Exchange encounters repeated failed collection
attempts using the alternative payment instructions.
    The purpose of the proposed change is to provide the Exchange with
the flexibility to agree to an alternative payment arrangement with a
Member or applicant for registration as such, if such Member or
applicant so requests, as the Exchange understands that certain Members
or applicants may have an operational burden associated with remitting
payment to the Exchange through an NSCC clearing account. Under the
proposed rule change, any such alternative payment instructions must:
(i) Be agreed to by the Exchange; and (ii) permit the Exchange to
initiate the debit of any fees and other monies due and owing to the
Exchange in a manner similar to the current requirement with respect to
an NSCC clearing account (i.e., a direct debit process).\11\ The
requirement that such alternative payment instructions must be agreed
to by the Exchange is intended to be an objective standard, and the
Exchange's ability to agree to such alternative payment instructions
would be exercised uniformly with respect to any Member or applicant
that so requests to the extent such alternative payment instructions
reasonably appear to permit the Exchange to utilize a direct debit
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 89784 (September 8,
2020), 85 FR 56672 (September 14, 2020) (SR-MEMX-2020-06) for
additional details regarding the Exchange's direct debit process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addition of Paragraph Headings and Relocation of Existing Rule Text
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph headings and
relocate certain existing text within Rule 15.3 for organization
purposes. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to add paragraph
headings to entitle paragraph (a) as ``Collection Through Direct
Debit''; paragraph (b) as ``Pricing Disputes''; and proposed new
paragraph (c) as ``Billing Errors''. Additionally, the Exchange is
proposing to relocate existing Rule text related to pricing dispute
procedures that is currently located in paragraph (a), which otherwise
addresses procedures related to the Exchange's direct debit process for
the collection of fees and other monies due and owing to the Exchange,
to paragraph (b), which contains procedures related to pricing
disputes, as the Exchange believes that including such Rule text in
paragraph (b) is more appropriate. The Exchange is not proposing to
amend any of the Rule text being relocated. These proposed changes are
non-substantive and are intended to provide greater context and
organization within Rule 15.3 and make such Rule easier to navigate and
understand.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\12\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to

promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
also believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \14\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. Additionally, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change
is consistent with the Section 6(b)(1) \15\ requirement that it be so
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its Members and
persons associated with its Members, with the provisions of the Act,
the rules and regulations thereunder, and the Exchange's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \14\ Id.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the proposed policy relating to billing errors, the
Exchange believes that providing that all fees and rebates are final
after three months (i.e., resolving billing errors only for the three
full calendar months preceding the month in which the Exchange became
aware of the error) is reasonable and consistent with the Act as both
the Exchange and its Members and Non-Members have an interest in
knowing when its fee assessments are final and when reliance can be
placed on those assessments. Indeed, without some deadline on billing
errors, the Exchange and its Members and Non-Members would never be
able to close their books with any confidence. As noted above, the
Exchange believes this proposed change would conserve Exchange
resources that would have to be expended to resolve untimely billing
disputes, which could divert Exchange staff resources away from the
Exchange's regulatory and business purposes. For these reasons, the
Exchange believes this proposed change promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, fosters cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with
respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the
public interest. Furthermore, as noted above, the language of proposed
Rule 15.3(c) is substantially similar to language included in the fee
schedules of the four Cboe U.S. equities exchanges,\16\ and a number of
other exchanges similarly consider their fees final after a similar
period of time.\17\ As such, this proposed change does not raise any
new or novel issues that have not been previously considered by the
Commission. This proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would apply equally to all Members (and Non-
Members that pay Exchange fees) and would apply in cases where either
the Member (or Non-Member) discovers the error or the Exchange
discovers the error.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra notes 7-10.
    \17\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the proposed change to enable the Exchange,
upon request, to permit a Member or applicant for registration as such
to provide alternative payment instructions (i.e., other than an NSCC
clearing account number, as currently required by Rule 15.3) for
purposes of the Exchange's direct debit collection process is
appropriate and consistent with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act,\18\ as such
change would provide the Exchange with the flexibility to agree to an
alternative payment arrangement with a Member or applicant that has an
operational burden associated with remitting payment to the Exchange
through an NSCC clearing account, thereby enabling it to be so
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its Members and
persons associated with its Members, with the Exchange's Rules relating
to payment of fees and other monies due and owing to the Exchange. The
Exchange also believes that reserving the right to revert to the
general rule (i.e., to require an NSCC clearing account number for
direct debit purposes) with respect to any such Member or applicant if
the Exchange encounters repeated failed collection attempts using such
alternative payment instructions is appropriately designed to ensure
that it is able to collect the fees and other monies due and owing to
the Exchange through its standard collection process if warranted, and
is thus consistent with the Act for similar reasons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, as this proposed change is designed to give the
Exchange and its Members flexibility regarding their payment
arrangements while providing a safeguard by which the Exchange may
revert to its standard collection process, the Exchange believes it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
This proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it is based on objective standards and would apply equally to
all Members and applicants for registration as such, as described
above.
    Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed changes to add
paragraph headings and relocate certain existing Rule text related to
pricing disputes to the appropriate paragraph within Rule 15.3 would
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, as such changes would provide
greater context and organization within the Rule, which would assist
Members in locating the relevant text within the Rule and therefore
make the Rule easier to navigate and understand. As noted above, the
Rule text being relocated is not being amended by this proposal. For
the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes these proposed changes are
non-substantive and consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposal will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. With respect to the proposed
billing errors policy, the proposal would establish a clearly defined
timeframe for fees and rebates to be considered final that would apply
equally to all Members and Non-Members. Additionally, as noted above,
this proposed change is similar to rules of other exchanges and
therefore does not raise any new or novel issues that have not been
previously considered by the Commission.\19\ The proposed change to
enable the Exchange to agree to alternative payment instructions for
the Exchange's direct debit collection process would also apply equally
to all Members and applicants for registration as such, as the
opportunity to request that the Exchange agree to alternative payment
instructions is available to any such Member or applicant and the

Exchange's ability to agree to such alternative payment instructions
would be exercised uniformly on an objective basis. Such change, as
well as the non-substantive changes to add paragraph headings and
relocate existing Rule text within Rule 15.3, do not address
competitive issues but are concerned solely with the administration of
the Exchange. For these reasons, the Exchange does not believe such
proposed changes would impair the ability of Members or competing order
execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the
financial markets, and therefore, the Exchange does not believe the
proposal will impose any burden on intermarket competition. Moreover,
because the proposed changes would apply equally to all Members and
Non-Members, as applicable, the Exchange does not believe the proposal
would impose any burden on intramarket competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra notes 7-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \20\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4. In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) requires a
self-regulatory organization to give the Commission written notice
of its intent to file the proposed rule change at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change 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-MEMX-2021-12 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-MEMX-2021-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MEMX-2021-12 and should be submitted on
or before November 15, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-23139 Filed 10-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40970-40972]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1000; FRL-8691-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Amendments to the Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Portable Fuel Containers

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision establishes and
requires the control of emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
portable fuel containers. EPA is approving this SIP revision in
accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on August 18, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1000. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the
Maryland Department of the Environment, 1800 Washington Boulevard,
Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gobeail McKinley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 3, 2007 (72 FR 67878), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed
approval of the control of VOC emissions from portable fuel containers.
The formal SIP revision was submitted by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE) on June 18, 2007.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    Maryland's amendments to the portable fuel containers rule
incorporate the changes to the 2007 Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
Model Rule for portable fuel containers that was based on the changes
adopted by California Air Resources Board (CARB) in July 2006. The
amendments address the fact that the original rule did not apply to
kerosene containers which were offered for sale in place of compliant
portable fuel containers. Other amended incorporations include:
Modifying the existing spout regulations in order to improve spillage
control; elimination of the fuel flow rate and fill level performance
standards; elimination of the automatic shutoff performance standard;
new containers must be certified for use and sale by the manufacturer
through CARB; and, new portable fuel container testing procedures to
streamline testing. The amendments, which includes a one-year sell-
through period, apply to any person who sells, supplies, advertises or
offers for sale, or manufactures for sale portable fuel containers and/
or spouts. Owners of portable fuel containers and/or spouts purchased
prior to the July 1, 2007 implementation date are not required to
purchase or replace the containers and/or spouts with newer, compliant
fuel containers. There are no manufacturers of portable fuel containers
in Maryland.
    The rationale for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR
and will not be restated here. On December 6, 2007, EPA received a
comment on its December 3, 2007 NPR. A summary of the comment submitted
and EPA's response is provided in section III of this document.

III. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Response

    Comment: The commenter expressed a concern that in New Jersey, the
container designs are not easy to use, especially for those who use
these containers only occasionally, and some people might defeat the
designs thereby eliminating any air quality benefits. The commenter
asks if EPA would investigate whether the containers will really bring
a significant clean air benefit.
    Response: These amendments, submitted by the State of Maryland
concerning the control of VOCs from portable fuel containers, are being
considered by EPA, on the basis that they strengthen the existing
Maryland SIP. There is no comparable Federal rule to reduce VOC
emissions from portable fuel containers. The State of Maryland has
estimated that these amendments will result in an emission reduction
potential of 1.6 tons per day of VOC in the Baltimore nonattainment
area, and 6 tons per day of VOC statewide beginning in 2009.\1\ The
commenter does not dispute that the Maryland portable fuel container
rule will reduce VOC emissions, but rather speculates that the
emissions reduction features of the fuel containers might be defeated
by end-users and asks EPA to investigate whether the rule will achieve
``significant clean air benefits.'' For purposes of approving this
regulation as a SIP-strengthening measure, EPA does not have to
determine if the emissions reductions from this regulation are or are
not ``significant.'' EPA merely needs to determine if the rule will
generate some additional reductions that would not be achieved by the
current Maryland SIP. The commenter does not challenge that at least
some amount of reductions will occur due to the implementation of the
fuel container rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Maryland is not at this time requesting EPA to approve a
quantified amount of VOC emission reduction from the enactment of
its regulation. Rather, this regulation has been submitted by
Maryland, and is being considered by EPA, on the basis that it
strengthens the existing Maryland SIP. EPA will only review and
approve a specific amount of emissions reductions after receiving a
proper request to do so from the State of Maryland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110 of the CAA provides the statutory framework for
approval/ disapproval of SIP revisions. Under the CAA, EPA establishes
NAAQS for certain pollutants. The CAA establishes a joint Federal and
State program to control air pollution and protect the public health.
States are required to prepare SIPs for each designated ``air quality
region'' within their borders. The SIP must specify emission limits

and other measures necessary for that area to meet and maintain the
required NAAQS. Each SIP must be submitted to the EPA for its review
and approval. EPA will review and must approve the SIP revision if it
is found to meet the minimum requirements of the CAA. See section
110(k)(3) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3); see also, Union Elec. Co.
v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265, 96 S.Ct. 2518, 49 L.Ed.2d 474 (1976).
    EPA has concluded that Maryland's amendments concerning the control
of VOCs from portable fuel containers meet the minimum criteria for
approvability. Furthermore, to the extent that the fuel containers
achieve any emissions reductions at all, even reductions that are not
``significant,'' this SIP revision will be more stringent than the
current Maryland SIP.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the control of VOC emissions from portable fuel
containers (COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>) as a revision to the Maryland SIP which
was submitted on June 18, 2007. This regulation will result in the
reduction of VOC emissions from the affected sources.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 15, 2008. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action pertaining to Maryland's amendments
to the portable fuel containers rule may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 1, 2008.
Donald S. Welsh,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries for COMAR 26.11.13 [title] and <IP_ADDRESS> to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                      EPA-Approved Regulations in the Maryland SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Code of Maryland  administrative                                      State                                            Additional  explanation/citation
   regulations (COMAR)  citation            Title/subject         effective date           EPA approval date                   at 40 CFR 52.1100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
COMAR 26.11.13....................                         Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
<IP_ADDRESS>.......................  Control of VOC Emissions             6/18/07  7/17/08 [Insert page number where    .................................
                                     from Portable Fuel                            the document begins].
                                     Containers.

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-16021 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P