February 22, 2008

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Decision Document for Petition Number 6E7062;

	Ferric Citrate (CAS Reg. No. 2338-05-8)

FROM:	Kathleen Martin, Chemist

		Inert Ingredient Assessment Branch (IIAB)

		Registration Division (7505P)

TO:		Deborah McCall, Acting Chief

		Inert Ingredient Assessment Branch (IIAB)

		Registration Division (7505P)

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

OVERVIEW

The Shepherd Chemical Company is requesting that ferric citrate be
exempt from the requirement of tolerance in or on raw agricultural
commodities under 40 CFR 180.910 when these substances are used as inert
ingredients in pesticide formulations.  After considering the available
toxicity and exposure data, EPA recommends that the requested exemption
from the requirement of tolerance be granted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	The Shepherd Chemical Company is requesting an exemption from tolerance
for ferric citrate (CAS Reg. No. 2338-05-8).  The toxicity data are from
the published literature and an EPA Reregistration Eligibility Document
(RED).  For exposure, standard models were used along with available
data.

	In summary, ferric citrate has low acute oral toxicity.  In subchronic
and chronic toxicity in rodents, no effects were noted.  Ferric citrate
has not been shown to be mutagenic or carcinogenic.  Finally, no
developmental and reproductive effects have been shown.  Based on this
information there is no concern, at this time, for increased sensitivity
to infants and children to ferric citrate when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations.  For the same reason, a safety
factor analysis has not been used to assess risk and, therefore, the
additional tenfold safety factor for the protection of infants and
children is also unnecessary.

	Ferric citrate will be used as an inert ingredient in pesticide
formulations applied to raw agricultural commodities.  In addition to
exposure through the pesticide application, individuals may be exposed
to iron through their diet (iron is an essential nutrient); and as a
pharmaceutical (to treat iron deficiency).  Application of pesticide
formulations containing ferric citrate is not expected to result in
residues of concern; modeled exposure estimates are low.  Iron is an
essential nutrient that, by definition, must be obtained through the
diet.  Foods rich in iron include:  beef, chicken, oysters, soybeans,
lentils, and spinach.  Iron occurs naturally in ground and surface
waters.  Any contribution from application of ferric citrate is expected
to be minimal.  Considering the environmental fate of related iron
compounds, ferric citrate is not expected to be mobile but rather will
remain mostly in soil where it is not expected to contribute
significantly to the chemistry and fate of the compounds existing
naturally in the environment.  As a pharmaceutical, about a quarter of
the U.S. population is estimated to ingest iron daily to ensure that
they are ingesting adequate amounts of iron.

Taking into consideration all available information on ferric citrate,
it has been determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to ferric
citrate when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations when
considering dietary exposure and all other nonoccupational sources of
pesticide exposure for which there is reliable information.  Therefore,
the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance requested by the
petitioner, The Shepherd Chemical Company, for residues of ferric
citrate, can be considered assessed as safe under section 408(q) of
FFDCA (or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).

I.	BACKGROUND

	Under a Notice of Filing (NOF) published on June 7, 2006 (71 FR 32955)
the Shepherd Chemical Company is requesting that ferric citrate be
exempt from the requirement of tolerance in or on raw agricultural
commodities when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.
That is, the Shepherd Chemical Company is requesting that ferric citrate
be exempt from the requirement of tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 as a
stabilizing agent.  No comments were received in response to the NOF.

II.	PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES

	“Ferric Citrate occurs as brown granules or as thin, transparent,
garnet red scales.  It is more readily soluble in hot water than in
cold, but it is insoluble in alcohol” (Committee on Food Chemicals
Codex 2003).  It appears to decompose on heating or exposure to light.
Some other physical and chemical properties are provided in Table 1:

Table 1.  Physical and Chemical Properties of Ferric Citrate

Parameter	Value	Source

Structure		NIH 2004

CAS #	2338-05-8	NIH 2004

Molecular Weight	244.943	NIH 2004

Common Names	iron citrate; iron(III) citrate 	NIH 2004

III.	HUMAN HEALTH ASSESSMENT

	Iron is one of the most common elements on Earth and it is essential to
nearly all known organisms.  It can exist in oxidation states ranging
from -2 to +6 but in biological systems three states are commonly found:
 ferrous (+2); ferric (+3); and ferryl (+4) (IOM 2001).  The iron of
ferric citrate is in the +3 oxidation state.

	Iron in the body is bound to proteins such as transferrin, hemoglobin,
myoglobin, ferritin, and hemosiderin; most of the iron in the body, 60
to 70 percent, is found in the hemoglobin molecule.  Ingested iron is
absorbed from the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and a small amount is
excreted.  An adult male needs to absorb only about 1 mg/day to maintain
iron balance.  In total, there is about 3 to 5 g of iron in the body.
Within the body the disposition of iron is regulated by a complex
mechanism to maintain homeostasis which involves transfer among the
liver, spleen, bone marrow, and blood.  (Klaasen et al 1986; IOM 2001)

	Iron is an essential nutrient; it plays a vital role in the transport
of oxygen throughout the body.  Too little may result in anemia—iron
deficiency anemia is the most common nutritional deficiency in the
world, resulting in fatigue and impaired cognitive development and
productivity.  However, the prevalence of iron deficiency in the United
States is low (NRC 1989).  Too much iron can cause adverse effects.
(Klaasen et al 1986; IOM 2001)  Klaasen et al (1986) point out that
“acute iron toxicity is nearly always due to ingestion of
iron-containing medicines…” and that chronic iron toxicity (iron
overload) is actually a more common problem.  Iron overload can result
from health-based problems (need for blood transfusions; idiopathic
hemochromotosis) or from excess dietary iron (Klaasen et al 1986).  The
Institute of Medicine (IOM), in developing its Dietary Reference Intakes
(DRI), determined an upper level of exposure to iron; it is based on GI
manifestations (IOM 2001).

Acute Toxicity

	No acute toxicity studies per se were identified for ferric citrate.
In 2002 the Agency reassessed the tolerance exemptions for the mineral
acids and their salts (USEPA 2002).  Among the chemicals assessed were
the iron sulfates.  Acute toxicity values included:

1oral LD50 rat:	1,487 to 2,102 mg/kg

2oral LD50 mice:	1,520 mg/kg

1dermal LD50 rabbit:	>2,000 mg/kg

1inhalation LC50 rat:	>1.10 mg/L

1Eye Irritation:	corrosive

1Dermal Irritation:	corrosive

1Dermal Sensitization:	negative

1Conducted with ferric (III) sulfate; 2Conducted with iron (II)
heptahydrate

	IOM (2001) discusses reports of acute toxicity resulting from overdoses
of medicinal iron, especially in young children.  Accidental iron
overdose is the most common cause of poisoning deaths in children under
six years of age in the U.S.  The severity of iron toxicity is related
to the amount of elemental iron absorbed.  Gastrointestinal
manifestations occur following the ingestion of 20 mg/kg bw and systemic
toxicity may occur following the ingestion of 60 mg/kg bw.  Vomiting and
diarrhea characterize the initial stages of iron intoxication while
later systemic effects can include those involving the heart, central
nervous system, kidney, liver, and blood.  The Institute of Medicine
(IOM 2001) reports that in studies with adults, GI effects were seen at
50 mg/day of elemental iron; this finding is supported by other studies
showing similar effects.

Subchronic Toxicity

	Inai et al (1994) administered ferric citrate in the drinking water of
male and female mice at doses of:  1; 0.5; 0.25; 0.12; or 0.06% (which
is equivalent to 0; 600; 1,200; 2,500; 5,000; or 10,000 ppm) for 13
weeks.  The investigators determined that the maximum tolerated dose is
0.12%.  No “specific findings induced by the oral administration of
ferric citrate could be detected.

	Mutagenicity

	Ishidate et al (1984) conducted the Ames test (with S. typhimurium
strains TA92, TA 1535, TA100, TA1537, TA94, and TA98) and chromosomal
aberration testing (with Chinese hamster fibroblasts).  In the Ames test
using 25 mg/plate of ferric citrate (the maximum dose), no significant
increases in the number of revertant colonies were detected in any S.
typhimurium strains.  In the chromosomal aberration testing using 0.5
mg/mL(the maximum dose), polyploidy was observed in 3% of the cells
after 48 hours and structural aberration was observed in 1% of the cells
after 48 hours; the investigators concluded that these results were
negative for chromosomal aberration.

Chronic Toxicity

	Ferric citrate was orally administered at concentrations of 0.12%
(maximum tolerated dose), 0.06%, or 0% in the drinking water to male and
female B6C3F1 mice (for males, 0.12% ferric citrate in drinking water is
equivalent to 0.22 mg/kg/day and 0.06% is equivalent to 0.10 mg/kg/day;
for females, 0.12% ferric is equivalent to 0.16 mg/kg/day and 0.06% is
equivalent to 0.07 mg/kg/day).  These concentrations were chosen on the
basis of the results of the subchronic testing.  Treatment was continued
for 13 weeks.  There was no significant difference between treated and
control groups in the tumor incidence or in the distribution of
different types of tumor.  Thus the long-term oral administration of
ferric citrate to mice did not yield any evidence of chronic toxicity or
tumorigenicity. (Inai et al 1994)

	Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity

	To determine if toxic fetal serum iron levels are reached when maternal
serum iron concentrations rise above what the body can homeostatically
maintain, investigators (Curry et al 1990) dosed pregnant sheep with
toxic doses of iron.  Specifically, four gravid ewes were dosed with
ferric chloride at 2 mg/kg/bw via intravenous administration over 60
minutes; this route was chosen over the oral route because only a small
amount of iron is absorbed from the GI tract after overdose.  A
significant rise was observed in the maternal serum iron concentration
but not in that of the fetuses.  The investigators concluded that the
fetus is protected from elevated maternal serum iron concentrations
during the third trimester of pregnancy, a period when the fetus
acquires most of the iron that it needs during the gestational period.

	Summary

	From what is known about the sulfates of iron (as opposed to the
citrate), it appears that ferric citrate is not acutely toxic via the
oral route.  In subchronic toxicity using mice, no effects were noted at
the maximum tolerated dose, which was 0.12% ferric citrate in distilled
water (this is approximately equivalent to 0.17 mg/kg/day).  In chronic
toxicity testing, no effects were seen at 0.22 mg/kg/day.  Ferric
citrate has not been shown to be mutagenic or carcinogenic.  Finally, no
developmental and reproductive effects have been shown.

Based on this information there is no concern, at this time, for
increased sensitivity to infants and children to ferric citrate when
used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations.  For the same
reason, a safety factor analysis has not been used to assess risk and,
therefore, the additional tenfold safety factor for the protection of
infants and children is also unnecessary.

IV.	Environmental Fate Characterization and Drinking Water
Considerations

Environmental Fate

	In 1993 (USEPA 1993) the Agency assessed the environmental fate of the
iron sulfates.  Because specific information on the fate of iron citrate
is not available, the Agency is relying on the iron sulfate assessment
(USEPA 1993) to describe the fate of the iron moiety of iron citrate.
This is reasonable given that the concentration of iron citrate in the
formulation will be low (1%) and the iron moiety of the sulfate salts
and citrate is expected to behave in a similar fashion.  Provided below
is the summary and conclusion for the environmental fate assessment for
the iron salts (USEPA 1993):

	In summary, the fate and transport of Fe(II) and Fe(III) salts in the
environment is dominated by three major processes:  (1) the pH-redox
potential dependent oxidation of Fe(II) to Fe(III); (2) the formation of
insoluble oxides and hydroxides that are also well known components of
soils; and (3) the distinct surface chemistry of the oxides and
hydroxides of iron that control the adsorption of anions, cations and
organic material or the adsorption of iron species onto the surfaces of
mineral and organic components of soils, contributing to the aggregation
of soil particles into larger units.

	In terrestrial environments, the use of Fe(II) and Fe(III) sulfates is
expected to produce iron oxides and hydroxides that are no different
from the iron oxides and hydroxides found in soils and which are
responsible for their brown and red colors.  Although certain bacteria
can reduce Fe(III) to the more mobile Fe(II), reoxidation and
reprecipitation to Fe(III) oxides and hydroxides will rapidly immobilize
any free Fe(II) that may form.

	Therefore, the use of the iron salts as herbicides to control moss in
residential outdoor ornamentals (herbaceous and woody plants; lawns and
turf) or as fertilizers to correct chlorosis in plants is not expected
to contribute significantly to the chemistry and fate of the compounds
existing naturally in the environment.

So, based on what is known on the salts of iron in the environment, EPA
does not expect that iron citrate will pose environmental risks of
concern.

Drinking Water

	Iron occurs naturally in ground and surface waters.  The Agency sets
nonenforceable standards for certain contaminants that may cause
cosmetic effects (such as skin or tooth discoloration) or aesthetic
effects (such as taste, odor, or color) in drinking water.  EPA
recommends secondary standards to water systems but does not require
systems to comply.  However, states may choose to adopt them as
enforceable standards.  These standards are referred to as National
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.  For iron, the standard is 0.3
mg/L.

	Iron concentrations in groundwater have been reported to range <0.5 to
100 mg/L; higher values have been found in the absence of oxygen and in
the presences of organic matter.  In surface waters, iron concentrations
can vary widely, ranging from 61 to 2,680 mg/L. (NIH 2005b)

V. 	Aggregate Exposure Assessment

	In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to
consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide
residue in food and all other nonoccupational exposures, including
drinking water (ground water or surface water) and exposure through
pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other
indoor uses).

EPA does not have information available to assess the potential for
exposure to ferric citrate in consumer products.  Nevertheless, given:
the natural and ubiquitous occurrence of iron-containing compounds in
the environment; iron’s known role in human physiology; and its
presence in various foods such as beef, soybeans, lentils, and spinach
(NIH 2005a), it is unlikely that residential exposures of concern would
result from the use of ferric citrate in nonpesticide products and as an
inert ingredient in pesticides.  Therefore, no further aggregate
assessment is necessary.

™ (USEPA 2007b).  DEEM™, or Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, is a
generic screening model that assumes that the inert ingredient is used
on all commodities and that 100 percent of crops are treated with the
inert ingredient.  Further, it assumes finite residues for every
consumed commodity (including meat, milk, poultry, and eggs) included in
the model.  DEEM™ does not include a weight fraction input, but
instead is based on a group of active ingredients that are typically
found in agricultural food-use products at concentrations ranging from
>50% to 100% of the formulation.  Provided in Table 2 are the estimated
generic chronic exposures for the U.S. population and several subgroups
along with the ferric citrate exposures (which happen to be the same as
the generic exposures).  Please note that these estimates are unrefined
and very conservative in nature.

Table 2.	Estimated Chronic Dietary Exposure for Ferric Citrate Use in
Glyphosate (USEPA 2007)

Population Subgroup1	Estimated Exposure (mg/kg/day)2

	Generic	Ferric Citrate	Ferric Citrate as 1% in Formulation

U.S. Population (total)	0.120	0.120	0.0012

All infants (<1 year)	0.245	0.245	0.0025

Children (1-2 years)	0.422	0.422	0.0042

Children (3-5 years)	0.310	0.310	0.0031

Children (6-12 years)	0.174	0.174	0.0017

Youth (13-19 years)	0.100	0.100	0.0010

Adults (20-49 years)	0.087	0.087	0.0009

Adults (50+ years)	0.086	0.086	0.0009

Females (13-49 years)	0.087	0.087	0.0009

1Only representative population subgroups are shown.

2Exposure estimates are based on highest tolerance-level residues of
high-use active ingredients for all food forms including meat, milk,
poultry, and eggs.

	In addition to exposure from use in pesticides, individuals are exposed
to iron through the diet.  Iron is an essential nutrient that, by
definition, must be obtained through the diet.  Foods rich in iron
include:  beef, chicken, oysters, soybeans, lentils, and spinach (NIH
2005a).  To ensure health, The National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
recommends that adults consume 8 mg of iron per day (or about 0.11
mg/kg/day); this is the Recommended Daily Allowance or RDA (IOM 2001).
Data from nationally representative U.S. surveys show that the median
daily intake of dietary iron by men is about 16 to 18 mg/day (or 0.23 to
0.26 mg/kg/day) and women about 12 mg/day (or 0.17 mg/kg/day). (IOM
2001)  In addition to food, cookware containing iron, such as stainless
steel or cast iron, can be a source of iron in the diet (NIH 2005b).

	Finally, salts of iron (e.g., ferrous sulfate) are used as
pharmaceuticals.  About 21 to 25 percent of women and 16 percent of men
were reported to take a daily iron supplement; on average it is
estimated to contain about 1 mg of iron/day (or 0.014 mg/kg/day).  (IOM
2001)

VI.	Cumulative Exposure

	Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
"available information" concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues and "other substances that have a common
mechanism of toxicity."

	Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk
approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, EPA has not made a
common mechanism of toxicity finding as to ferric citrate and any other
substances and, this material does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances.  For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that ferric citrate has
a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.  For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see the policy statements released by EPA's Office of
Pesticide Programs concerning common mechanism determinations and
procedures for cumulating effects from substances found to have a common
mechanism on EPA's website at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/ .

VII.	Ecological Exposure Assessment

A.	Ecological Data

	In 1993 the Agency assessed the hazards posed to nontarget terrestrial
and aquatic organisms resulting from their exposure to iron sulfates
(USEPA 1993).  Because information specific to iron citrate is not
available, EPA is relying on the iron sulfate ecological hazard
assessment (USEPA 1993) to describe ecological hazards resulting from
exposure to iron.  This is reasonable given that the concentration of
iron citrate in the formulation will be low (1%) and the iron moiety of
the sulfate salts and citrate is expected to behave in a similar
fashion.  Provided below is the summary and conclusion for the
environmental fate assessment for the iron salts (USEPA 1993):

	No adverse effects to avian, mammalian or aquatic populations are
anticipated from the use of iron salts.  Iron is one of the most
abundant elements and will be immobilized at the environmentally
important pH range of 5-9.  There is very little likelihood for runoff
to aquatic systems since the parent compounds convert very rapidly to
less soluble forms in the environment.  Furthermore, these oxidized iron
compounds bind tightly to soil under turf.

VIII.	Risk Characterization

A.	Human Health

	The Shepherd Chemical Company is requesting that ferric citrate be
exempt from the requirement of tolerance in or on raw agricultural
commodities when used as an inert ingredient stabilizing agent in
pesticide formulations under 40 CFR 180.910.  In considering the
potential risk posed by the use of ferric as an inert ingredient in a
pesticide formulation, the Agency considered available toxicity and
exposure information.

	Ferric citrate is not acutely toxic via the oral route.  In subchronic
toxicity using mice, no effects were noted at the maximum tolerated
dose, which is 0.12% ferric citrate in distilled water (this is
approximately equivalent to 0.17 mg/kg/day).  In chronic toxicity
testing, no effects were seen at 0.22 mg/kg/day.  Ferric citrate has not
been shown to be mutagenic or carcinogenic.  Finally, no developmental
and reproductive effects have been shown.  Based on this information
there is no concern, at this time, for increased sensitivity to infants
and children to ferric citrate when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations.  For the same reason, a safety factor analysis
has not been used to assess risk and, therefore, the additional tenfold
safety factor for the protection of infants and children is also
unnecessary.

	To characterize the chronic dietary risk resulting from the use of
ferric citrate as an inert ingredient, EPA estimated dietary exposure
(see Table 2) and compared it to a toxicity endpoint.  In the Pesticide
Program the “population adjusted dose (PAD)” is commonly used as the
toxicity endpoint for dietary risk assessment.  A “population adjusted
dose” or “PAD” is a reference dose (RfD) that has been adjusted to
take into account the FQPA (Food Quality Protection Act of 1996) Safety
Factor.  For ferric citrate, EPA is using the “Tolerable Upper Intake
Level” (UL) as the toxicity endpoint for risk characterization.
Because the NAS DRIs, which include UL, have been so extensively
peer-reviewed, are so widely accepted, and were developed for dietary
assessment purposes EPA believes that using these for its dietary risk
assessment is appropriate.

	The National Academy of Sciences IOM establishes DRIs which are
“reference values that are estimates of nutrient intakes to be used
for planning and assessing diets for apparently healthy people” (IOM
2001).  DRI’s include:  RDA’s and UL’s.  An RDA is “the dietary
intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirement of
nearly all (97 to 98 percent) of healthy individuals in a particular
life stage and gender group.”  A UL is “the highest level of
nutrient intake that is likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects
for almost all individuals in the general population.  As intake
increases above the UL, the risk of adverse effects increases.”  IOM
(2001) has established UL’s and RDA’s for iron; they are provided in
Tables 3 and 4, respectively.  The critical adverse effect for the UL is
GI distress with a LOAEL of 70 mg/day (IOM 2001).

Table 3.  Tolerable Upper Intake Levels1 for Iron in Terms of mg/kg
bw/day

Age Group

(years)	Iron Level (mg/kg bw/day)

	Males and Females	During Pregnancy

(females only)	During Lactation

(females only)

0 to 3	3.3	NA

4 to 8	1.8

	9 to 13	0.98

	14 to 18	0.74	0.79	0.79

19 to 50	0.63	0.69	0.69

51+	0.63	NA

1UL’s, as provided by IOM (2001) are reported in units of mg/day (for
iron, the UL’s range from 40 to 45 mg/day).  EPA assumed that a child
under 3 years of age weighs 12.2 kg; a 4 to 8 year-old weighs 22.8 kg; a
9 to 13 year-old weighs 41.0 kg; a 14 to 18 year-old weighs 60.6 kg; and
an average adult weighs 71.8 kg.  In addition, EPA assumes that a 14 to
18 year-old female weighs 56.9 kg and a 19 to 50 year-old female weighs
65.4 kg. (USEPA 1997)

Table 4.	Recommended Dietary Allowances1 for Iron (mg/kg/day) in Terms
of 	mg/kg bw/day

Age Group

 (years)	Iron Level

	Males 	Females	During Pregnancy

(females only)	During Lactation

(females only)

<1	1.21	NA

1 to 3	0.53

	4 to 8	.44

	9 to13	0.20

	14 to18	0.18	0.26

0.18

19 to 50	0.11	0.28	0.41	0.14

51+	0.11	NA

1RDA’s, as provided by IOM (2001) are reported in units of mg/day (for
iron, the UL’s

range from 7 to 27 mg/day.  EPA assumed that a child less than one year
weighs 9.1 kg; a 1 to 3 year-old weighs 13.3 kg; a 4 to 8 year-old
weighs 22.8 kg; a 9 to 13 year-old weighs 41.0 kg; a 14 to 18 year-old
weighs 60.6 kg; and an average adult weighs 71.8 kg.  In addition, EPA
assumes that a 14 to 18 year-old female weighs 56.9 kg and a 19 to 50
year-old female weighs 65.4 kg. (USEPA 1997)

	Comparing estimated dietary exposure (see Table 2 for details of
calculations) to the appropriate UL’s (see Table 3), a metric of
dietary risk is calculated; it is expressed as % of the UL.  Provided in
Table 5 is a summary of the estimated % of the UL.

Table 5.	Estimated Chronic Dietary Risk for Ferric Citrate Use in
Glyphosate 	(USEPA 2007)

Population Subgroup	Estimated Exposure to Ferric Citrate2

(mg/kg/day)	UL’s3

(mg/kg/day)	Risk Metric

(% of the UL)3

	For Ferric Citrate	For Ferric Citrate as 1% in Formulation

U.S. Population (total)	0.120	0.63	19.0	0.19

All infants (<1 year)	0.245	3.3	7.4	0.07

Children (1-2 years)	0.422	3.3	12.8	0.13

Children (3-5 years)	0.310	1.8	17.2	0.17

Children (6-12 years)	0.174	1.8	9.7	0.10

Youth (13-19 years)	0.100	0.74	13.5	0.14

Adults (20-49 years)	0.087	0.63	13.8	0.14

Adults (50+ years)	0.086	0.63	13.7	0.14

Females (13-49 years)	0.087	0.63	13.8	0.14

1See Table 2 for calculations.

2The UL’s are calculated in Table 3.

3Calculated by dividing the Adjusted Estimated Exposure by the UL and
multiplying by 100.

As shown in Table 5, the ‘% of the UL’ for the overall U.S.
population is about 19%; the ‘% of the UL’ for young children is
about 7%.  Please note that these estimates of dietary risk, which
represent the contribution for food only, are very conservative.  If 1%
ferric citrate were used in the formulation, the ‘% of the UL’ for
the U.S. population would be less than 1% and the ‘% of the UL’ for
young children also less than 1%.

	Looking at the other potential sources of iron exposure:  on a daily
basis average adults should consume 0.11 mg/kg/day (this is the RDA) of
iron to maintain health (IOM 2001).  Contrasting the amount that EPA
expects an average adult to be exposed to through use of ferric citrate
as an inert ingredient (0.0012 mg/kg/day), the pesticidal exposure is
quite small.  Regarding drinking water, iron is a naturally-occurring
element ground and surface waters.  Some exposure is expected but is not
expected to be of concern to human health.  EPA’s Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water regulates iron as a secondary contaminant.
Secondary contaminants are those that are considered to be
“nuisance” chemicals (e.g., affect taste or color) rather than
health concerns (USEPA 1992).  EPA expects EPA expects that when used as
an inert ingredient in pesticide products, ferric citrate would either
remain on the plant or be washed off with rain or irrigation where it
would be adsorbed to the soil.  The Agency does not expect that it would
deposit in ground or surface water.  As a pharmaceutical, about a
quarter of the U.S. population is estimated to ingest about 0.014
mg/kg/day of iron; again, compared to the RDA, this exposure is low.
Therefore, dietary (food and drinking water) exposures of concern are
not anticipated from use of ferric citrate in pesticides.  Exposures
from residential uses of pesticides containing ferric citrate, and from
consumer products containing the chemical, are not expected to be of
concern considering its low dermal and inhalation toxicity.

Taking into consideration all available information on ferric citrate,
it has been determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
to any population subgroup will result from aggregate exposure to ferric
citrate when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations when
considering dietary exposure and all other nonoccupational sources of
pesticide exposure for which there is reliable information.  Therefore,
the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance requested by the
petitioner, The Shepherd Chemical Company, for residues of ferric
citrate, can be considered assessed as safe under section 408(q) of the
FFDCA.

	B.	Ecological

	Based on a previous Agency environment and ecological risk assessment
for iron salts (USEPA 1993), EPA concludes that ferric citrate as an
inert ingredient in pesticide formulations does not pose ecological
risks of concern.

REFERENCES

Committee on Food Chemicals Codex.  2003.  Food Chemicals Codex.  5th
ed.

National Academies Press.

Curry SC, et al.  1990.  An ovine model of maternal iron poisoning in
pregnancy.  Ann Emerg Med.  1990 Jun;19(6):632-8.

Inai K; Fujihara M, Yonehara S, Kobuke T.  1994.  Tumorigenicity study
of ferric citrate administered orally to mice.  Food Chem Toxicol.  1994
Jun;32(6):493-8

IOM.  2001.  Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K,
Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum,
Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc.  Panel on Micronutrients,
Subcommittees on Upper Reference Levels of Nutrients and of
Interpretation and Use of Dietary Reference Intakes, and the Standing
Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes.
Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine.  National Academy of
Sciences.  National Academy Press.  Washington DC.    HYPERLINK
"http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10026&page=1"
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10026&page=1

Ishidate M, et al.  1984.  Primary mutagenicity screening of food
additives currently used in Japan.  Food Chem Toxicol. 1984
Aug;22(8):623-36.

Klaasen, CD, et al, editors.  1986.  “Casarett and Doull’s
Toxicology,” 3rd edition.  Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
p.613.

NIH.  2004.  ChemID Plus.  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
 National Institutes of Health, Department of Health & Human Services.
U.S. National Library of Medicine.  Website last modified on September
9, 2004.    HYPERLINK
"http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/jsp/chemidheavy/ChemFull.jsp?MW=
46.0684"  http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/

NIH.  2005a.  Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet:  Iron.  Office of Dietary
Supplements. NIH Clinical Center.  National Institutes of Health.  U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.  Updated:  July 26, 2005.
Information retrieved on July 17, 2007.

  HYPERLINK "http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/iron.asp#h2"
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/iron.asp#h2

NIH.  2005b.  Hazardous Substances Data Bank.  U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services.  National Institutes of Health, Department of Health
& Human Services.  U.S. National Library of Medicine.  Website last
modified:  February 5, 2005.  Information retrieved on July 17, 2007.
HYPERLINK "http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB"
http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB

NRC.  1989.  Diet and Health:  Implications for Reducing Chronic Disease
Risk.  National Research Council.  Committee on Diet and Health.
National Academy of Sciences.  The National Academy Press.  Washington
DC.

Piperno, A.  1998.  Classification and Diagnosis of Iron Overload.
Haematologica. May;83(5):447-55.

U.S. EPA.  1992.  Secondary Drinking Water Regulations:  Guidance for
Nuisance Chemicals.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Office of
Water.  July 1992.  EPA 810/K-92-001.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/safewater/consumer/2ndstandards.html"
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/consumer/2ndstandards.html

U.S. EPA.  1993.  Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED):  Iron
Salts.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Prevention, Pesticide and
Toxic Substances.  February 1993.  EPA 738-F-93-002.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/iron_salt.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/old_reds/iron_salt.pdf

U.S. EPA.  1997.  Exposure Factors Handbook.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  Office of Research and Development.  National Center
for Environmental Assessment.  PB98-124217.    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/efh/front.pdf"
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/pdfs/efh/front.pdf .  Retrieved on April 16,
2007.

U.S. EPA.  2002.  Memorandum from K. Boyle and K. Leifer to R. Forrest.
“IIFG Decision Documents on Reassessing Exemptions from the
Requirement of a Tolerance for the Mineral Acids (Hydrochloric,
Carbonic, Phosphoric, and Sulfuric) and their Ammonium, Calcium,
Ferrous, Ferric, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium, and/or Zinc Salts.”
Registration Division.  Office of Pesticide Programs.  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.  July 24, 2002.

-

5

6

4

¬

愀Ĥ欀幤

鐇Ԫ혈F鐃죿倊ﰙ耤㐆

耀갆

4

¬

4

¬

4

¬

hîF

摧䛰Ø

hîF

h

摧䛮

hîF

hîF

hîF

hîF

hîF

hîF

hîF

.and ferric citrate exposures are the same because it was assumed that
ferric citrate would be used at a concentration of 100%.  If a lower
concentration of ferric citrate were assumed, the generic exposures
would be adjusted accordingly.

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   2

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION,

PESTICIDES, AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 82 (Monday, April 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 18018]
[FR Doc No: 2019-08556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-1639-000]

South Peak Wind LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
South Peak Wind LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 13, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link
above. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected]. or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 23, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-08556 Filed 4-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51887-51889]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24256]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82005; File No. SR-PHLX-2017-055]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Changes To Amend Rules 1024, Conduct of Accounts for
Options Trading, and 1025, Supervision of Accounts

November 2, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On September 7, 2017, NASDAQ PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ proposed rule
changes to amend Phlx Rules 1024 (Conduct of Accounts for Options
Trading) and 1025 (Supervision of Accounts) to conform them more
closely to the comparable rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') and to make minor clarifications and corrections to the
text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule changes were published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 22, 2017.\3\ The public comment period closed on
October 13, 2017. The Commission received no comments on the proposed
rule changes. This order approves the proposed rule changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 81642 (Sept. 18, 2017), 82 FR
44481 (Sept. 22, 2017) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Changes 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The subsequent description of the proposed rule changes is
substantially excerpted from the Exchange's description in the
Notice. See Notice, 82 FR 44481-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rules 1024 and 1025 contain regulatory requirements generally
applicable to Phlx members and member organizations that conduct a
public customer options business. The Exchange is proposing changes to
certain sections of those rules to clarify the language and to correct
inaccuracies. The Exchange also proposes to change certain rule
language to conform the rules more closely to CBOE rules dealing with
the same subject matter, in order to prevent inadvertent
misunderstandings of the rules' requirements. These rule changes are
intended to promote more effective regulatory compliance by Exchange
members and member organizations. The proposed changes are detailed
below.

Rule 1024(a)(i)

    Rule 1024(a)(i) governs registration of Options Principals.\5\ The
rule currently provides that no member or member organization or
individual associated with a member organization shall be approved to
transact options business with the public until such persons, who are
designated as Options Principals, have been approved by and registered
with the Exchange. Additionally, it provides that persons engaged in
the supervision of options sales practice or a person to whom the
designated general partner or executive officer

(pursuant to Rule 1025) or another Registered Options Principal \6\
delegates the authority to supervise options sales practices shall be
designated as Options Principals. Finally, the rule states that all
members and member organizations must use Web CRD to submit Form U4,
Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer
filings on behalf of their Options Principals. Members and member
organizations are required under the rule to amend Form U4 filings not
later than thirty (30) days after the filer knew or should have known
of the facts which gave rise to the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Rule 612(d).
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 1024(a)(i) by adopting
language requiring Options Principals to electronically file a Uniform
Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U4)
with Web CRD, to successfully complete an examination prescribed by the
Exchange and specified in Rule 1024 for the purpose of demonstrating an
adequate knowledge of the options business and of the Rules of the
Exchange, and to further agree in the U4 filing to abide by the Bylaws
and Rules of the Exchange and the Rules of The Options Clearing
Corporation. The Exchange is proposing to remove the sentence that
requires members and member organizations to amend Form U4 filings not
later than thirty (30) days after the filer knew or should have known
of the facts which gave rise to the amendment. However, the Exchange
proposes to add language requiring members and member organizations
that are required to complete Form U4 to promptly (but in any event no
later than 30 days after the filer knew or should have known of the
facts which gave rise to the need for the amendment) electronically
file any required amendments to Form U4 with Web CRD. Additionally, new
language is proposed that would require termination of employment or
affiliation of any Registered Options Principal in such capacity to be
promptly, but in any event no later than 30 days following the
termination, electronically reported to Web CRD together with a brief
statement of the reason for such termination on Form U5. The amendment
would conform Rule 1024(a) more closely to CBOE Rule 9.2. The proposal
would also correct a reference in the second sentence to ``options sale
practice,'' substituting for that term ``options sales practices.''

Rule 1024(b)(ii)

    Rule 1024(b)(ii) generally provides that, in approving a customer's
account for options transactions, a member or member organization shall
exercise due diligence to learn the essential facts as to the customer
and his investment objectives and financial situation, and shall make a
record of such information. It also provides for approval and for
confirmation of approval of the customer's account by a Registered
Options Principal qualified individual.
    For purposes of clarity, the Exchange proposes to eliminate
references in Rule 1024(b)(ii) to a ``specific'' or ``specified''
Registered Options Principal. It also proposes to delete the words
``qualified individual'' as they appear following references to
Registered Options Principals to eliminate any ambiguity, as it is not
clear what a Registered Options Principal qualified individual means if
not a Registered Options Principal. Finally, the Exchange proposes to
relocate the phrase ``within a reasonable period of time'' simply to
conform the rule in this respect more closely to CBOE Rule 9.7.

Rule 1024(c)(v)

    Rule 1024(c)(v) is proposed to be amended by changing an inaccurate
internal cross reference, from Rule 1029(c) to Rule 1029(b).

Rule 1024 Commentary .01 Section 8

    The Exchange is proposing to delete the word ``other'' as
unnecessary and to correct the placement of a closing parenthesis,
moving it from after the word ``transactions'' to after the word
``commodities.''

Rule 1024 Commentary .03

    The Exchange is proposing to add the inadvertently omitted word
``an'' before the word ``opportunity.''

Rule 1024 Commentary .06

    The Exchange is proposing to reword the sentence for clarity, so
that it states that individuals engaged in the supervision of options
sales practices are required to be designated as Options Principals and
are required to qualify as an Options Principal by passing one of the
examinations referred to in the rule. The Exchange also proposes to
amend the rule's reference to the Series 9/10 examination, in order to
use the same name that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') uses for that examination.

Rule 1024 Commentary .07

    The Exchange proposes to add the inadvertently dropped word
``reviewing'' to a sentence that requires individuals who are delegated
responsibility for reviewing, among other things, the acceptance of
discretionary accounts, to be designated as Options Principals and pass
the Series 4 examination.

Rule 1025(a)(iii)A

    The Exchange proposes to substitute the word ``responsibility'' for
the word ``responsibilities'' simply to conform the rule more closely
to CBOE Rule 9.8(a)(3)(i).

Rule 1025(b)(i)

    The Exchange proposes to make non-substantive wording changes to
conform the rule language more closely to that of CBOE Rule 9.8(b)(1)
by removing the unnecessary words ``above-noted,'' by replacing the
words ``requirements applicable to'' with the words ``responsibility
of,'' by deleting the unnecessary words ``however, the,'' and by
replacing the words ``other than the principal supervisory office if
such documents and information'' with the words ``off premises so long
as the records.''

Rule 1025(b)(iii)

    The Exchange proposes to capitalize the word ``Rule'' in a
reference to SEC Rule 17a-4, to conform the language more closely to
CBOE Rule 9.8(b)(3).

Rule 1025(b) Concluding Sentence

    The words ``any person'' are proposed to be substituted for the
words ``a person'', and an inaccurate reference to ``this paragraph
(b)(3)'' is proposed to be corrected to read ``this paragraph
(b)(iii).''

Rule 1025(d)

    An extraneous word ``the'' is proposed to be deleted before the
word ``proximity'' to conform more closely to CBOE Rule 9.8(d)(1)(i),
and an inaccurate reference to Rule 1025(c) is proposed to be corrected
to read Rule 1025(e).

Rule 1025(e)

    The Exchange proposes to remove an extraneous comma to conform the
rule more closely to CBOE Rule 9.8(e)(1) and to change an incorrect
internal cross reference from paragraph (e)(1) to paragraph (e)(i).

Rule 1025(g)

    Currently, Rule 1025(g) requires each member organization that
conducts a non-member customer business to submit each year to the
Exchange a written report on the member organization's supervision and
compliance effort during the preceding year. The Exchange proposes to
expand the requirement to conform it more closely to CBOE Rule 9.8(g),
by

specifying that the report must also detail the adequacy of the member
organization's ongoing compliance processes and procedures. The
proposed amendments to Rule 1025(g) would also require the Chief
Executive Officer (or equivalent) to certify that the member
organization has in place processes to test the effectiveness of
policies and procedures on a periodic, rather than on a regular, basis.
This change would conform the Exchange's requirement more closely to
the comparable CBOE Rule 9.8(g)5(i)(C) requirement. The proposal would
also correct the spelling of the word ``preceding'' in Rule
1025(g)(ii), add missing semicolons to an itemized list found in Rule
1025(g)(iii), correct inaccurate internal cross references in Rules
1025(g)(v)(C) and (D), as well as correct the placement of a closing
parenthesis in Rule 1025(g)(v)(C). Finally, it would replace the
awkward phrase ``this requirement of this Rule'' with ``the
requirements of this Rule.''

Rule 1025(h)

    Rule 1025(h) currently provides that each member organization shall
submit the report required by Rule 1024(g) to its one or more control
persons or, if the member organization has no control person, to the
audit committee of its board of directors or its equivalent committee
or group. The Exchange proposes to replace the inaccurate reference to
Rule 1024(g) with a correct reference to Rule 1025(g). The Exchange
proposes to add language to the end of the rule to establish the
meaning of ``control person,'' proposed to be defined as a person who
controls the member organization. The new language would define the
term ``control'' as meaning the power to exercise a controlling
influence over the management or policies of the member organization,
unless such power is solely the result of an official position with the
member organization. Finally, the new language would state that any
person who owns beneficially, directly or indirectly, more than 20% of
the voting power in the election of directors of the member
organization, or more than 25% of the voting power in the election of
directors of any other corporation which directly or through one or
more affiliates owns beneficially more than 25% of the voting power in
the election of directors of the member organization, shall be presumed
to control the member organization. The proposed new language is based
on CBOE Rules 9.8(h) and 1.1(k), which is incorporated by reference
into CBOE Rule 9.8(h).

Rule 1025 Commentary .02 and .03

    Rule 1025 Commentary .02 is proposed to be amended by deleting the
introductory phrase ``In meeting their supervisory responsibilities''
in order to conform the language more closely to CBOE Rule 9.8,
Interpretations and Policies .01. The rule currently requires member
organizations conducting a non-member customer business to enforce
written procedures governing the conduct of options accounts. As
revised, the written procedures would be required to detail the
specific methods used to supervise all non-member customer accounts and
all orders in such accounts. This amendment would also provide greater
clarity regarding the required content of the procedures and also would
conform the rule more closely to CBOE Rule 9.8, Interpretations and
Policies .01. The last sentence of Commentary .02 would be revised by
replacing the phrase ``short uncovered'' options positions with the
phrase ``uncovered short'' options positions. Finally, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 1025 Commentary .03 by adding the word ``shall''
to the first sentence, to conform the language more closely to CBOE
Rule 9.8, Interpretations and Policies .02.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule changes, the Commission
finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are
applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule changes are consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act,\8\ which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices; to promote just
and equitable principles of trade; 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. Section
6(b)(5) also requires that the rules of an exchange not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving these rule changes, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal is designed to ``remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, by
correcting various aspects of the rules and by adding additional
clarity to the rules.'' \9\ The Commission notes that Phlx believes
that conforming its rules regarding conduct of accounts for options
trading and supervision of accounts more closely to the corresponding
CBOE rules will create ``more efficient regulatory compliance by
members of both exchanges due to reduction of differences in wording
and consequent potential for inadvertent regulatory noncompliance.''
\10\ The Commission further notes that Phlx believes that the minor
corrections and clarifications of the rules in the proposal will
``improve the accuracy of the rules'' and ``improve their readability,
making them more understandable and thereby facilitating easier
compliance.'' \11\ The Commission notes that the proposal received no
comments from the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, 82 FR at 44483.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposal will promote regulatory
efficiency through more precise rule text and greater harmonization of
regulatory requirements across national securities exchanges, thereby
reducing regulatory burdens, without undermining strong regulatory
protections for investors. The Commission believes that the approach
proposed by the Exchange is appropriate and designed to protect
investors and the public interest, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the Exchange Act. For these reasons, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule changes are consistent with the Exchange Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder.

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) \12\ of the
Exchange Act that the proposal (SR-PHLX-2017-055), be and hereby is
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24256 Filed 11-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 241 (Wednesday, December 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78225-78226]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31541]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2013-0110; FRL-9940-16-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Categorical Non-Waste Determination for
Selected Non Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM): Construction and
Demolition Wood, Paper Recycling Process Residuals, and Creosote-
Treated Railroad Ties (Additions to List of Section 241.4 Categorical
Non-Waste Fuels)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``Categorical Non-Waste
Determination for Selected Non Hazardous Secondary Materials (NHSM):
Construction and Demolition Wood, Paper Recycling Process Residuals,
and Creosote-Treated Railroad Ties (Additions to List of Section 241.4
Categorical Non-Waste Fuels)'' (EPA ICR No. 2493.01, OMB Control No.
2050-XXXX) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This is a request for approval of a new collection. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR
21006) on April 14, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before January 15,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2013-0110, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jesse Miller, Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery, Materials Recovery and Waste Management
Division, MC 5302P, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: EPA published the Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials
(NHSM) Rule on March 21, 2011. Amendments to this rule were published
in the Federal Register on February 7, 2013. These amendments provided
clarification on certain issues on which EPA received new information,
as well as specific targeted revisions. In addition, these amendments
listed several NHSMs as categorical non-wastes when used as fuels. The
Agency also indicated that we would consider

adding additional materials to the categorical listings.
    The rule associated with this ICR Supporting Statement proposes to
add three additional materials to the list of categorical non-waste
fuels: (1) Construction and demolition (C&D) wood processed from
construction and demolition debris according to best management
practices; (2) paper recycling residuals (PRRs), including old
corrugated cardboard (OCC) rejects, generated from the recycling of
recovered paper and paperboard products and burned on-site by paper
recycling mills whose boilers are designed to burn solid fuel, and (3)
creosote-treated railroad ties that are processed and combusted in
units designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil. This ICR is a
description of the indirect information collection requirements
associated with the proposed rule. There are two burden categories
associated with this action: reading and understanding the rule, and
certification statements for affected facilities.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Generators, users, and potential
users of the new materials proposed to be added to the list of
categorical non-waste fuels.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary, required to obtain
non-waste determinations for non-hazardous secondary materials (40 CFR
part 241).
    Estimated number of respondents: 605 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 885 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $64,739 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: This is a new collection.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-31541 Filed 12-15-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69487-69490]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27623]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70857; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its
Rules Regarding Option Orders That Are Tied to Stock Orders

November 13, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on October 31, 2013, Chicago Board Options

Exchange, Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding option orders
that are tied to stock orders. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided below.

(additions are italicized; deletions are [bracketed])
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

* * * * *

Rule 6.53. Certain Types of Orders Defined

    One or more of the following order types may be made available on a
class-by-class basis. Certain order types may not be made available for
all Exchange systems. The classes and/or systems for which the order
types shall be available will be as provided in the Rules, as the
context may indicate, or as otherwise specified via Regulatory
Circular.
    (a)-(x) No change.
    (y) Tied to Stock. A tied to stock order is an option order that is
tied to a stock order at the time of order entry (i.e. option order
that, at the time it is entered into the System, is part of a trading
strategy consisting of two or more orders, at least one of which is an
order for the underlying stock, even though the component orders were
submitted separately). Each tied to stock order submitted to the
Exchange must be marked as ``tied to stock'' upon entry into the
System.

. . . Interpretation and Policies:

    .01-.05 No change.
* * * * *

Rule 6.77. Order Service Firms

    (a)-(d) No change.
    (e) Order service firms must submit reports pursuant to Rule 15.2A
with respect to the stock transactions it executes on behalf of market-
makers pursuant to this Rule 6.77.
* * * * *

Rule 15.2A. Reports of Execution of Stock Transactions

    In a manner and form prescribed by the Exchange, each Trading
Permit Holder must submit to the Exchange as soon as practicable
following the close of trading on each trading day a report of the
following information regarding the stock legs of tied to stock orders,
QCC orders, stock-option orders and other option orders that include
stock components on the same ticket executed on that trading day: (a)
time of execution, (b) execution quantity, (c) execution price, (d)
venue of execution, and (e) any other information requested by the
Exchange.

. . . Interpretation and Policies:

    .01 The Exchange will announce by Regulatory Circular any
determinations, including the manner and form of the report, that it
must make pursuant to Rule 15.2A.
    .02 Trading Permit Holders do not need to report information
pursuant to Rule 15.2A with respect to stock-option orders or other
option orders that include stock components on the same ticket that
were submitted to the Exchange for electronic processing.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding option orders
that are tied to stock orders. The proposed rule change adds Rule
6.53(y), which defines a ``tied to stock order'' as an option order
that is tied to a stock order at the time of order entry. In other
words, a ``tied to stock'' order is an option order that, at the time
it is entered into the System, is part of a trading strategy consisting
of two or more orders, at least one of which is an order for the
underlying stock, even though the component orders were submitted
separately). Tied to stock orders do not include standard hedging
strategies that include stock orders, as further discussed below. The
proposed rule requires that each tied to stock order submitted to the
Exchange be marked as ``tied to stock'' upon entry into the system. A
tied to stock order can be a simple or complex order.
    Tied to stock orders do not include qualified contingent cross
(``QCC'') orders,\3\ stock-option orders that are submitted on the same
order ticket or submitted to the Exchange for electronic processing
(such as to the complex order book (``COB''), complex order auction
(``COA'') or automated improvement mechanism (``AIM'')),\4\ or

other option orders that include stock components on the same order
ticket. Thus, those types of orders do not need to be marked as ``tied
to stock.'' The Exchange is already aware that these types of orders
include stock components, and thus does not require market participants
to add the ``tied to stock'' marking to indicate the stock components
for regulatory purposes, as discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A QCC order is an order to buy (sell) at least 1,000
standard option contracts or 10,000 mini-option contracts that is
identified as being part of a qualified contingent trade coupled
with a contra-side order to sell (buy) an equal number of contracts.
These orders may only be entered in the standard increments
applicable to simple orders in the options class under Rule 6.42.
For purposes of this order type, a ``qualified contingent trade'' is
a transaction consisting of two or more component orders, executed
as agent or principal, where: (a) At least one component is an NMS
stock, as defined in Rule 600 of Regulation NMS under Act; (b) all
components are effected with a product or price contingency that
either has been agreed to by all the respective counterparties or
arranged for by a broker-dealer as principal or agent; (c) the
execution of one component is contingent upon the execution of all
other components at or near the same time; (d) the specific
relationship between the component orders (e.g., the spread between
the prices of the component orders) is determined by the time the
contingent order is placed; (e) the component orders bear a
derivative relationship to one another, represent different classes
of shares of the same issuer, or involve the securities of
participants in mergers or with intentions to merge that have been
announced or cancelled; and (f) the transaction is fully hedged
(without regard to any prior existing position) as a result of other
components of the contingent trade. QCC orders may execute without
exposure provided the execution is not at the same price as a public
customer order resting in the electronic book and is at or between
the national best bid or offer. A QCC order will be cancelled if it
cannot be executed. See Rule 6.53(u).
    \4\ A stock-option order is an order to buy or sell a stated
number of units of an underlying stock or a security convertible
into the underlying stock (``convertible security'') coupled with
the purchase or sale of options contract(s) on the opposite side of
the market representing either (i) the same number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security, or (ii) the number of
units of the underlying stock necessary to create a delta neutral
position, but in no case in a ratio greater than eight-to-one
(8.00), where the ratio represents the total number of units of the
underlying stock or convertible security in the option leg to the
total number of units of the underlying stock or convertible
security in the stock leg (or such lower ratio as may be determined
by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis). Only those stock-option
orders with no more than the applicable number of legs, as
determined by the Exchange on a class-by-class basis, are eligible
for processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change also adopts Rule 15.2A, which provides
that each Trading Permit Holder must submit to the Exchange as soon as
practicable following the close of trading on each trading day a report
of the following information regarding the stock legs of any tied to
stock orders, QCC orders, stock-option orders and other option orders
that include stock components executed on that trading day: (a) Time of
execution, (b) execution quantity, (c) execution price, (d) venue of
execution, and (e) any other information requested by the Exchange.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .01 provides that the Exchange will
designate by Regulatory Circular any determinations \5\ that it must
make under Rule 15.2A, including the manner and form in which Trading
Permit Holders should submit these reports to the Exchange. Proposed
Interpretation and Policy .02 provides that Trading Permit Holders do
not need to report information pursuant to Rule 15.2A with respect to
stock-option orders or other option orders with stock components that
[sic] on the same order ticket submitted to the Exchange for electronic
processing (such as to COB, COA or AIM). Because the Exchange routes
for execution through a routing broker to stock exchanges or trading
centers the stock components of these orders, the Exchange will already
have access to the transaction information for the stock components of
these orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This includes any updates or changes to any determinations
made by the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is responsible for regulating its markets and Trading
Permit Holders. To carry out its regulatory responsibilities, the
Exchange needs to have sufficient trade data to effectively monitor
cross-market trading activity, assist with investigations of potential
violations of federal securities laws and Exchange rules, and perform
market reconstructions or other analysis necessary to understand
trading activity. CBOE currently requires Trading Permit Holders to
submit various execution data in real-time or daily to help the
Exchange monitor trading activity.\6\ The Exchange believes that as use
of electronic, interconnected markets continues to increase, access to
additional cross-market order information, specifically information
regarding stock trades tied to option orders, would enhance the
Exchange's ability to monitor this trading activity and therefore allow
it to more effectively fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Rules 4.13 (requires Trading Permit Holders to
submit reports to the Exchange related to position limits); 6.24
(which requires Trading Permit Holders to systemize certain order
information); 6.51 (requires Trading Permit Holders to report to the
Exchange certain information regarding transactions on and off the
Exchange); 8.9 (requires Clearing Trading Permit Holders to report
to the Exchange executed orders by Market-Makers for the purchase or
sale of equity securities, as well as opening and closing positions
in those securities); 15.2 (requires Trading Permit Holders to
submit to the Exchange a daily report of all transactions); and 15.3
(requires Trading Permit Holders, upon request of the Exchange, to
submit a report of the total uncovered short positions in each
option contract class); see also Rule 15.1, Interpretation and
Policy .01. Pursuant to Appendix A--Applicability of Rules of the
Exchange to Chapter L of the CBOE Rules, these rules (except for
Rule 6.24) also apply to CBSX Trading Permit Holders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes the additional information it will receive
pursuant to proposed Rule 15.2A (including information from orders
service firms) will enhance its ability to effectively monitor and
conduct surveillance of the CBOE market and its Trading Permit Holders,
and their relevant cross-market trading activity, and thus to detect
and investigate illegal activity in a more timely fashion. The Exchange
also believes that the proposed rule change will improve its ability to
conduct more timely and accurate trading analyses, market
reconstructions, complex enforcement inquiries or investigations, and
inspections and examinations. The proposed marking of tied to stock
orders will greatly improve the Exchange's ability to tie an executed
stock leg to the applicable option order and thus the Exchange's
ability to conduct surveillances related to these orders, such as
surveillances for compliance with Regulation SHO and frontrunning
rules.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change to mark tied to
stock orders will place minimal additional burden on Trading Permit
Holders, because the marking will merely be adding one additional
notation when entering a tied to stock order. The Exchange also
believes the proposed rule change to report to the Exchange information
regarding stock trades will place minimal additional burden on Trading
Permit Holders because they already have the capability to gather the
required information, as the Exchange believes that stock exchanges (on
which stock legs will be executed) require reporting of transaction
information for stock trades in a similar manner as the Exchange does
for option trades. Additionally, as discussed above, Exchange rules
already require Trading Permit Holders to systemize or report various
types of information regarding their orders and transactions to the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that this proposed rule change
will substantially decrease its administrative burden in having to
otherwise manually gather this cross-market information and tie stock
legs to option orders in connection with its regulatory duties.
    Order service firms,\7\ which are Trading Permit Holders, will be
subject to the reporting requirements set forth in proposed Rule 15.2A
with respect to stock transactions that they execute on behalf of
market-makers on the floor of the Exchange. The proposed rule change
adds paragraph (e) to Rule 6.77 to include this reporting requirement,
as the Exchange believes that including all requirements applicable to
order service firms in a single Exchange rule will benefit these firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Order service firms are regular Trading Permit Holder
organizations that are registered with the Exchange for the purpose
of taking orders for the purchase or sale of stocks or commodity
futures contracts (and options thereon) from market-makers on the
floor of the Exchange and forwarding such orders for execution. Rule
6.77(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change in a Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 90
days following the effective date. The implementation date will be no
later than 180 days following the effective date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in

securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \10\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
significantly aid the Exchange's efforts to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices with respect to option orders that are
tied to stock, because it will greatly improve the Exchange's ability
to tie executed stock legs to the applicable option orders that were
separately entered. This, along with the additional stock transaction
information that the Exchange will receive pursuant to proposed Rule
15.2A, will provide the Exchange with information that will permit CBOE
to more efficiently and effectively conduct its regulatory
surveillances of CBOE trading activity and cross-market trading
activity, such as surveillances to ensure compliance with Regulation
SHO and frontrunning rules. Because the proposed rule change will
enhance the Exchange's surveillance of cross-market trading activity,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will also remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system. In addition, the Exchange believes the
proposed rule change will promote just and equitable principles of
trade and protect investors by allowing the Exchange to detect and
investigate illegal activity in a more timely fashion and improving the
Exchange's ability to conduct more timely and accurate trading
analyses, market reconstructions, complex enforcement inquiries or
investigations, and inspections and examinations. Finally, the Exchange
believes that the proposed changes to Rule 6.77 will benefit investors
by including all requirements with respect to stock transactions
executed by orders service firms, respectively, in a single place
within the Exchange's rules.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change will impose the same
marking and reporting requirements on all Trading Permit Holders that
submit tied to stock orders to CBOE. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act. While the proposed rule change may impose requirements with
respect to tied to stock orders submitted to CBOE that other options
exchanges do not, the Exchange believes that, as discussed above, any
additional burden imposed on Trading Permit Holders by this proposed
rule change is minimal. The Exchange believes that stock exchanges (on
which stock legs will be executed) already require reporting of
transaction information for stock trades in a similar manner as the
proposed rule change will require. Additionally, the marking
requirement for tied to stock orders is only one additional piece of
information that the Trading Permit Holder must enter when submitting a
tied to stock order. The Exchange believes the benefits that the
proposed rule change will provide with respect to its regulatory
responsibilities far outweigh any minimal additional burden imposed on
Trading Permit Holders.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-107 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-CBOE-2013-107. 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 20549-1090 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 offices 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-
CBOE-2013-107, and should be submitted on or before December 10, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-27623 Filed 11-18-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 63871]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25032]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

Prevailing Wind Park, LLC........  EG19EG19-159-000
West of the Pecos Solar, LLC.....  EG19EG19-160-000
Whitney Hill Wind Power, LLC.....  EG19EG19-161-000
Misae Lessee LLC.................  EG19EG19-162-000
Childress Solar Park, LLC........  EG19EG19-163-000
Chief Conemaugh Power II, LLC....  EG19EG19-164-000
Chief Keystone Power II, LLC.....  EG19EG19-165-000
Rosewater Wind Farm LLC..........  EG19EG19-166-000
Kaheawa Wind Power, LLC..........  EG19EG19-167-000
SR Arlington II MT, LLC..........  EG19EG19-168-000
SR Arlington II, LLC.............  EG19EG19-169-000
South Peak Wind LLC..............  EG19EG19-170-000
PGR Lessee L, LLC................  EG19EG19-171-000
TWE Bowman Solar Project, LLC....  EG19EG19-172-000
MD Solar 2, LLC..................  EG19EG19-173-000
FL Solar 4, LLC..................  EG19EG19-174-000
AZ Solar 1, LLC..................  EG19EG19-175-000
GA Solar 3, LLC..................  EG19EG19-176-000
Lily Solar LLC...................  EG19EG19-177-000
Lily Solar Lessee, LLC...........  EG19EG19-178-000

    Take notice that during the month of October, 2019, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a)
(2019).

    Dated: November 13, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-25032 Filed 11-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P