[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14983-14988]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07238]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85541; File No. SR-PEARL-2019-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; MIAX PEARL, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the MIAX
PEARL Fee Schedule

April 8, 2019.
    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 March 27, 2019, MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX PEARL'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a
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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to establish certain non-transaction
fees applicable to participants and new members trading options on and/
or using services provided by MIAX PEARL.
    MIAX PEARL commenced operations as a national securities exchange
registered under Section 6 of the Act \3\ on February 6, 2017.\4\ The
Exchange adopted its transaction fees and certain of its non-
transaction fees in its filing SR-PEARL-2017-10.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79543 (December 13,
2016), 81 FR 92901 (December 20, 2016) (File No. 10-227) (order
approving application of MIAX PEARL, LLC for registration as a
national securities exchange).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80061 (February 17,
2017), 82 FR 11676 (February 24, 2017) (SR-PEARL-2017-10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on April 1, 2019.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/pearl at MIAX
PEARL's principal office, 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 purpose of the proposed rule change is to establish certain
non-transaction fees applicable to certain market participants and new
members trading options on and/or using certain services provided by
the Exchange. The Exchange introduced the structure of certain non-
transaction fees in its filing SR-PEARL-2017-10 (without proposing
actual fee amounts), but also explicitly waived the assessment of any
such fees for the period of time which the Exchange defined as the
``Waiver Period.'' \6\ The Exchange now proposes to adopt certain non-
transaction fees as described below, and thereby terminate the Waiver
Period applicable to such non-transaction fees. In general, the
Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to establish one-time
application for membership fees for MIAX PEARL Members; \7\ Application
Programming Interface (``API'') Testing and Certification fees; and
MIAX PEARL Member Participant Identifier (``MPID'') \8\ fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``Waiver Period'' means, for each applicable fee, the period
of time from the initial effective date of the MIAX PEARL Fee
Schedule until such time that the Exchange has an effective fee
filing establishing the applicable fee. The Exchange will issue a
Regulatory Circular announcing the establishment of an applicable
fee that was subject to a Waiver Period at least fifteen (15) days
prior to the termination of the Waiver Period and effective date of
any such applicable fee. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \7\ ``Member'' means an individual or organization that is
registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of the Exchange
Rules for purposes of trading on the Exchange as an ``Electronic
Exchange Member'' or ``Market Maker.'' Members are deemed
``members'' under the Exchange Act. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \8\ An MPID is a code used in the MIAX PEARL system to identify
the participant to MIAX PEARL and to the participant's Clearing
Member respecting trades executed on MIAX PEARL. Participants may
use more than one MPID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to remove the
text and application of the New Member Non-Transaction Fee Waiver.\9\
The Exchange adopted the three month New Member Non-Transaction Fee
Waiver in its filing SR-PEARL-2018-07.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``New Member Non-Transaction Fee Waiver'' means the waiver
of certain non-transaction fees, as explicitly set forth in specific
sections of the Fee Schedule, for a new Member of the Exchange, for
the waiver period. For purposes of this definition, the waiver
period consists of the calendar month the new Member is credentialed
to use the System in the production environment following approval
as a new Member of the Exchange and the two (2) subsequent calendar
months thereafter. For purposes of this definition, a new Member
shall mean any Member who has not previously been approved as a
Member of the Exchange. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \10\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82867 (March 13,
2018), 83 FR 12044 (March 19, 2018) (SR-PEARL-2018-07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to remove the New Member Non-Transaction
Fee Waiver as described below, and thereby terminate the New Member
Non-Transaction Fee Waiver as it applies to all relevant fees,
including the Monthly Trading Permit fee; Port fees; and MIAX PEARL Top
of Market (``ToM'') and MIAX PEARL Liquidity Feed (``PLF'') market data
fees. The Exchange also proposes to amend the Definitions section of
the Fee Schedule to delete the definitions of ``New Member Non-
Transaction Fee Waiver'' and ``Waiver Period'' because those
definitions are no longer applicable in accordance with this proposal
to remove the Waiver Period for all remaining waived non-transaction
fees, as described below, including the three month fee waiver
applicable to certain non-transaction fees for new Members of the
Exchange.
A. Application for MIAX PEARL Membership
    A one-time application fee based upon the applicant's status as
either an Electronic Exchange Member \11\ (``EEM'') or as a Market
Maker \12\ will be assessed by MIAX PEARL. Applicants for MIAX PEARL
Membership as an EEM will be assessed a one-time application fee of
$500. Applicants for MIAX PEARL Membership as a Market Maker will be
assessed a one-time application fee of $1,500. The difference in the
fee charged to EEMs and Market Makers reflects the additional review
and processing effort needed for Market Maker applications. MIAX
PEARL's one-time application fees are similar to and generally lower
than one-time application fees in place at the Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe'') ($3,000 for an individual applicant and $5,000 for an
applicant organization) \13\ and at Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``Nasdaq ISE'')
($7,500 per firm for a primary market maker, $5,500 per firm for a
competitive market maker, and $3,500 per firm for an electronic market
maker).\14\ Below is the table for the proposed one-time fee for
membership application for MIAX PEARL:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ``Electronic Exchange Member'' or ``EEM'' means the holder
of a Trading Permit who is a Member representing as agent Public
Customer Orders or Non-Customer Orders on the Exchange and those
non-Market Maker Members conducting proprietary trading. Electronic
Exchange Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \12\ ``Market Maker'' means a Member registered with the
Exchange for the purpose of making markets in options contracts
traded on the Exchange and that is vested with the rights and
responsibilities specified in Chapter VI of Exchange Rules. See
Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \13\ See Cboe Fees Schedule, p. 12, Cboe Trading Permit Holder
Application Fees.
    \14\ See Nasdaq ISE Pricing Schedule, IX(A).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Application
                   Type of membership                           fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Exchange Member..............................         $500.00
Market Maker............................................        1,500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX PEARL will assess a one-time Membership Application Fee on the
earlier of (i) the date the applicant is certified in the membership
system, or (ii) once an application for MIAX PEARL membership is
finally denied.
B. Member API Testing and Certification Fee
    MIAX PEARL will assess an API Testing and Certification fee on
Members. An API makes it possible for Member software to communicate
with MIAX PEARL software applications, and is subject to Member testing
with, and certification by, MIAX PEARL. API testing and certification
includes, for EEMs, testing all available order types, new order entry,
order management, order throughput and mass order cancellation. For
Market Makers, API testing and certification also includes testing of
all available quote types, quote throughput, quote management and
cancellation, Aggregate Risk Manager settings and triggers, and
confirmation of quotes within the trading engines.
    The API Testing and Certification fees for Members are based upon
the type of interface that the Member has been credentialed to use.
MIAX PEARL will assess an API testing and certification fee for Members
(i) initially per API for

FIX,\15\ MEO,\16\ FXD \17\ and CTD \18\ in the month the Member has
been credentialed to use one or more ports in the production
environment for the tested API, and (ii) each time a Member initiates a
change to its system that requires testing and certification. API
Testing and Certification fees will not be assessed in situations where
the Exchange initiates a mandatory change to the Exchange's system that
requires testing and certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``FIX Interface'' means the Financial Information Exchange
interface for certain order types as set forth in Exchange Rule 516.
See Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions Section of the Fee
Schedule.
    \16\ ``MEO Interface'' means a binary order interface for
certain order types as set forth in Rule 516 into the MIAX PEARL
System. See Exchange Rule 100. See the Definitions Section of the
Fee Schedule.
    \17\ ``FXD Interface'' or ``FIX Drop Copy Port'' means a
messaging interface that provides a copy of real-time trade
execution, trade correction and trade cancellation information to
FIX Drop Copy Port users who subscribe to the service. FXD Port
users are those users who are designated by an EEM to receive the
information and the information is restricted for use by the EEM
only. See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \18\ ``CTD Port'' or ``Clearing Trade Drop Port'' provides an
Exchange Member with a real-time clearing trade updates. The updates
include the Member's clearing trade messages on a low latency, real-
time basis. The trade messages are routed to a Member's connection
containing certain information. The information includes, among
other things, the following: (i) Trade date and time; (ii) symbol
information; (iii) trade price/size information; (iv) Member type
(for example, and without limitation, Market Maker, Electronic
Exchange Member, Broker-Dealer); and (v) Exchange MPID for each side
of the transaction, including Clearing Member MPID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any Member can select any type of interface (FIX Interface, MEO
Interface, FXD Interface, and/or the CTD Port) to test and certify.
Each Member who uses the FIX Interface to connect to the System \19\
will be assessed an API Testing and Certification fee of $1,000. Each
Member who uses the MEO Interface to connect to the System will be
assessed an API Testing and Certification fee of $1,500. Each Member
who uses the FXD Interface to connect to the system will be assessed an
API Testing and Certification fee of $500. Each Member who uses the CTD
Port to connect to the system will be assessed an API Testing and
Certification fee of $500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is the proposed fee table for API Testing and Certification
fees for Members:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            API testing
                                                                and
                    Type of interface                      certification
                                                                fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIX.....................................................       $1,000.00
MEO.....................................................        1,500.00
FXD.....................................................          500.00
CTD.....................................................          500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API Testing and Certification Fees will be assessed (i) initially
per API for FIX, MEO, FXD and CTD in the month the Member has been
credentialed to use one or more ports in the production environment for
the tested API, and (ii) each time a Member initiates a change to its
system that requires testing and certification. API Testing and
Certification Fees will not be assessed in situations where the
Exchange initiates a mandatory change to the Exchange's system that
requires testing and certification.
C. Non-Member API Testing and Certification Fee
    MIAX PEARL will assess an API Testing and Certification fee for
Third Party Vendors \20\, Service Bureaus \21\ and other non-Members
(i) initially per API for FIX, MEO, FXD, and CTD in the month the non-
Member has been credentialed to use one or more ports in the production
environment for the tested API, and (ii) each time a Third Party
Vendor, Service Bureau, or other non-Member initiates a change to its
system that requires testing and certification. API Testing and
Certification fees will not be assessed in situations where the
Exchange initiates a mandatory change to the Exchange's system that
requires testing and certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Third party vendors are subscribers of MIAX's market and
other data feeds, which they in turn use for redistribution
purposes. Third party vendors do not provide connectivity and
therefore are not subject to Network testing and certification. See
the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
    \21\ ``Service Bureau'' means a technology provider that offers
and supplies technology and technology services to a trading firm
that does not have its own proprietary system. See the Definitions
Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MIAX PEARL API Testing and Certification fees for non-Members
are based upon the type of interface used by the non-Member to connect
to the Exchange--the FIX Interface, the MEO Interface, the FXD
Interface, and/or the CTD Port. Any non-Member can select any type of
interface (FIX Interface, MEO Interface, FXD Interface, and/or the CTD
Port) to test and certify. As with Members, an API makes it possible
for third party vendors' and Service Bureaus' software to communicate
with MIAX PEARL software applications, and is subject to testing with,
and certification by, MIAX PEARL. The higher fee charged to non-Members
reflects the greater amount of time spent by MIAX PEARL employees
testing and certifying non-Members. It has been MIAX PEARL's experience
that Member testing takes less time than non-Member testing because
Members have more experience testing these systems with exchanges;
generally fewer questions and issues arise during the testing and
certification process. Also, because Third Party Vendors and Service
Bureaus are redistributing data and reselling services to other Members
and market participants, the number and types of scenarios that need to
be tested are more numerous and complex than those tested and certified
for a single Member.
    Each non-Member who uses the FIX Interface to connect to the System
will be assessed an API Testing and Certification fee of $1,200. Each
non-Member who uses the MEO Interface to connect to the System will be
assessed an API Testing and Certification fee of $2,000. Each non-
Member who uses the FXD Interface to connect to the system will be
assessed an API Testing and Certification fee of $600. Each non-Member
who uses the CTD Port to connect to the system will be assessed an API
Testing and Certification fee of $600.
    Below is the proposed fee table for API Testing and Certification
fees for non-Members:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            API testing
                                                                and
                    Type of interface                      certification
                                                                fee
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIX.....................................................       $1,200.00
MEO.....................................................        2,000.00
FXD.....................................................          600.00
CTD.....................................................          600.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    API Testing and Certification Fees for Third Party Vendors, Service
Bureaus and other non-Members will be assessed (i) initially per API
for FIX, MEO, FXD, and CTD in the month the non-Member has been
credentialed to use one or more ports in the production environment for
the tested API, and (ii) each time a Third Party Vendor, Service
Bureau, or other non-Member initiates a change to its system that
requires testing and certification. API Testing and Certification Fees
will not be assessed in situations where the Exchange initiates a
mandatory change to the Exchange's system that requires testing and
certification.
D. MPID Fees
    MIAX PEARL will assess monthly MPID fees on Members based upon type
of MPID. MIAX PEARL assesses MPID

fees to cover the administrative costs it incurs in assigning and
managing these identifiers for each Member. Members will be assessed a
monthly MPID fee of $125 for each FIX MPID. Members will be assessed a
monthly MPID fee of $125 for each MEO MPID. MPIDs allow the Exchange to
provide additional services to its Members, including reporting,
monitoring and risk protection services, down at the MPID level. MPIDs
provide the Members the ability to segment their business operations in
a manner that can be tailored to their business needs, as well as
receive certain additional administrative and operational services
provided by the Exchange.
    The Exchange also proposes to introduce a cap on the amount of MPID
fees that are assessed by the Exchange to a Member of $500 per month,
regardless of the actual number of EEM or MEO MPIDs assigned to such
Member. The Exchange believes that establishing a monthly cap on MPID
fees will give Members greater flexibility to accommodate their varying
business models and customer configurations, as many Members often
request multiple MPIDs from the Exchange, and the Exchange does not
want MPID costs to serve as a barrier for requesting multiple MPIDs.
The Exchange notes that this fee cap is similar to the MPID fee cap
assessed by the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Options.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82823 (March 7,
2018), 83 FR 10935 (March 13, 2018) (SR-MIAX-2018-09).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Below is the proposed MPID fee table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Monthly MPID
                      Type of MPID                             fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIX MPID................................................         $125.00
MEO MPID................................................          125.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MPID fees are capped at $500.00 per month per Member.
E. New Member Non-Transaction Fee Waiver
    The Exchange proposes to remove the New Member Non-Transaction Fee
Waiver from the Fee Schedule. The New Member Non-Transaction Fee Waiver
waived the assessment of a fee for a Trading Permit, Port, ToM or PLF
market data feed for a new Member of the Exchange for the first
calendar month during which the new Member was approved as a Member and
was credentialed to use the System in the production environment, and
for the two (2) subsequent calendar months thereafter.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See the Definitions Section of the Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange initially waived certain non-transaction fees for new
Members in order to attract new business and encourage Members to use
the Exchange. The Exchange now believes that the New Member Non-
Transaction Fee Waiver is no longer necessary since the MIAX PEARL
market is established and MIAX PEARL no longer needs to rely on such
waivers to attract market participants.
    The Exchange notes that any Member who began receiving the New
Member Non-Transaction Fee Waiver prior to the filing of this proposal,
will continue to receive that benefit for the first calendar month
during which they were approved as a Member and were credentialed to
use the System in the production environment, and for the two (2)
subsequent calendar months thereafter.
    The Exchange has issued a Regulatory Circular announcing the
establishment of the aforementioned fees that were subject to the
Waiver Period at least 15 days prior to the termination of the Waiver
Period and effective date of the applicable fee.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \24\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \25\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons
using its facilities. The Exchange also believes the proposal furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it is designed 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 and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to eliminate the
waiver of the non-transaction fees described above is reasonable
because the Exchange no longer believes it is necessary to waive these
fees to attract market participants to the MIAX PEARL market since this
market is now established and MIAX PEARL no longer needs to rely on
such waivers to attract market participants. The Exchange believes that
the proposed changes are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the elimination of the non-transaction fees will uniformly
apply to all Exchange participants based on market participant type.
    The Exchange believes its one-time membership application fees are
reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As described
above, the one-time application fees are similar and generally lower
than application fees in place at other options exchanges,\26\ and are
designed to recover costs associated with the processing of such
applications. The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable,
and not unfairly discriminatory that Market Maker applicants are
charged slightly more than EEM applicants because of the additional
work involved in processing a Market Maker's application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See supra notes 13 and 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly
discriminatory to begin to assess API Testing and Certification fees
for both Members and non-Members. The Exchange believes the proposed
API Testing and Certification fees are a reasonable allocation of its
costs and expenses among its Members and non-Members using its
facilities since it is recovering the costs associated with providing
such infrastructure testing and certification services.
    MIAX PEARL believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to assess different API Testing and Certification fees
to Members and non-Members. The higher fee charged to non-Members
reflects the greater amount of time spent by MIAX PEARL employees
testing and certifying non-Members. It has been MIAX PEARL's experience
that Member testing takes less time than non-Member testing because
Members have more experience testing these systems with exchanges;
generally fewer questions and issues arise during the testing and
certification process. Also, with respect to API testing and
certification, because Third Party Vendors and Service Bureaus are
redistributing data and reselling services to other Members and market
participants the number and types of scenarios that need to be tested
are more numerous and complex than those tested and certified for
Members.
    The Exchange believes its fees for MPIDs are reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory in that they apply to all Members
assigned MPIDs equally and allow the Exchange to recover administrative
and operational costs in assigning and maintaining such services. In
particular, MPIDs provide Members the ability to segment their

business operations in a manner that can be tailored to their business
needs, as well as receive certain additional administrative and
operational services provided by the Exchange. The Exchange also
believes that the proposed amendment to establish a fee cap for Members
on MPID fees is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory.
The proposal to cap the total amount of MPID fees that can be assessed
upon a Member to a maximum of $500 per month is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade by encouraging Members to
configure their MPID assignments with greater granularity and for MPID
costs to not serve as a barrier for requesting multiple MPIDs. Because
any Member is eligible to take advantage of the fee cap, the Exchange
believes the fee cap is fair and equitable and not unreasonably
discriminatory because it applies equally to all Members, and access to
such fee cap is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment to remove the New
Member Non-Transaction Fee Waiver is reasonable, equitable, and not
unfairly discriminatory because the removal of the New Member Non-
Transaction Fee Waiver applies equally to all new Members of the
Exchange. The Exchange initially waived certain non-transaction fees
for new Members in order to attract new business and encourage Members
to join the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the New Member Non-
Transaction Fee Waiver is no longer necessary since the MIAX PEARL
market is established and MIAX PEARL no longer relies on such waivers
to attract market participants. Further, the proposed rule change will
not apply to any new Member who began receiving the New Member Non-
Transaction Fee Waiver prior to the filing of this proposal and will
continue to receive that benefit for the first calendar month during
which they were approved as a Member and were credentialed to use the
System in the production environment, and for the two (2) subsequent
calendar months thereafter.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges. The Exchange
believes that the proposed changes reflect this competitive
environment.

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

    MIAX PEARL 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. Unilateral action by MIAX PEARL
in the assessment of certain non-transaction fees for services provided
to its Members and others using its facilities will not have an impact
on competition. As a more recent entrant in the already highly
competitive environment for equity options trading, MIAX PEARL does not
have the market power necessary to set prices for services that are
unreasonable or unfairly discriminatory in violation of the Act. MIAX
PEARL's proposed non-transaction fee levels, as described herein, are
comparable to fee levels charged by other options exchanges for the
same or similar services, including those fees assessed by its
affiliate, MIAX Options.
    Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
promote transparency by making it clear to Members and non-Members the
applicable fees that MIAX PEARL will assess for application for
membership to MIAX PEARL, API testing and certification, and MPID fees,
as well as the cap on MPID fees for EEMs. This will permit Members and
non-Members to more accurately anticipate and account for non-
transactional costs, which promotes consistency.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees and fee
waivers to remain competitive with other exchanges and to attract order
flow to the Exchange.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\27\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \28\ thereunder.
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 should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \28\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     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-PEARL-2019-12 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-PEARL-2019-12. 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-PEARL-2019-12 and should be
submitted on or before May 3, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-07238 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 113 (Wednesday, June 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27210-27212]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0396]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; AASCIF Fireworks Display, Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain waters of Lake Erie during the AASCIF Fireworks
display. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on
these navigable waters near the Great Lakes Science Center, Cleveland,
OH, during a fireworks display on July 21, 2019. This proposed
rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 12, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0396 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Ryan Junod, Chief of Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone
216-937-0124, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On March 4, 2019, the American Association of State Compensation
Insurance Funds notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a
fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. through 9:35 p.m. on July 21, 2019.
The fireworks are to be launched from land at position 41[deg]30'26'' N
and 81[deg]42'11'' W near Cleveland, OH. Hazards from firework displays
include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and
falling hot embers or other debris. The Captain of the Port Buffalo
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for
anyone within a 350-foot radius of the fireworks launch site.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters within a 350-foot radius of position
41[deg]30'26'' N and 81[deg]42'11'' W before, during, and after the
scheduled event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under
authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a safety zone from 9:15 p.m.
through 9:50 p.m. on July 21, 2019. The safety zone would cover all
navigable waters within 350 feet of position 41[deg]30'26'' N and
81[deg]42'11'' W near Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH. The duration of the
zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable
waters before, during, and after the scheduled 9:30 p.m. through 9:35
p.m. fireworks display. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter
the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the conclusion
that this rule is not a significant regulatory action. We anticipate
that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere
with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant
or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy
issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small
and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone has
been designed to allow vessels to transit around it. Thus, restrictions
on vessel movement within that particular area are expected to be
minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit
through the safety zone when permitted by the COTP.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety
zone lasting less than 1 hour that would prohibit entry within 350 feet
of a fireworks display. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L[60] in Table 3-1 of U.S.
Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A
preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this

document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0396 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0396   Safety Zone; AASCIF Fireworks Display; Lake Erie,
Cleveland, OH.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake
Erie; Cleveland, OH contained within a 350-foot radius of:
41[deg]30'26'' N, 81[deg]42'11'' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This regulation will be enforced from 9:15
p.m. through 9:50 p.m. on July 21, 2019.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or an on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or an on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: June 5, 2019.
Joseph S. Dufresne,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2019-12228 Filed 6-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


52695 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Rules and Regulations EPA APPROVED NEBRASKA REGULATIONS   Continued Nebraska citation Title State effective date EPA approval date Comments * * * * * * *

129   30 .................................... Open Fires, Prohibited; Exceptions 11/ 20/ 02 9/ 5/ 03 and FR page citation.

* * * * * * *

* * * * *

PART 70   [ AMENDED]

 1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

Appendix A   [ Amended]

 2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding paragraph ( g) under Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln Lancaster County Health Department to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70   Approval Status of State and Local Operating Permits Programs * * * * * Nebraska; City of Omaha; Lincoln Lancaster County Health Department.

* * * * * ( g) The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality approved revisions to NDEQ Title 129, chapters 1, 5, 6, and appendix III ( which codifies its prior Federally approved Insignificant Activities List) on September 5, 2002, which became effective on November 20, 2002. These revisions were submitted on May 1, 2003. We are approving these program revisions effective November 4, 2003.

* * * * *

[ FR Doc. 03   22539 Filed 9   4   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [ OPP   2003   0284; FRL   7323   7]

Propylene Carbonate; Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propylene carbonate when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied pre and post harvest to agricultural commodities. Huntsman Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of propylene carbonate. DATES: This regulation is effective September 5, 2003. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0284, must be received on or before November 4, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit VIII. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 305   6304; e mail address: boyle. kathryn@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed underFOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0284. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings athttp:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. A frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 is available at http:// www. access. gpo. gov/ nara/ cfr/ cfrhtml_ 00/ Title_ 40/ 40cfr180_ 00. html, a beta site currently under development. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still VerDate jul< 14> 2003 14: 52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SER1. SGM 05SER1 52696 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Rules and Regulations access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background and Statutory Findings In the Federal Register of December 30, 1998 ( 63 FR 71920) ( FRL   6050   1), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA), 21 U. S. C. 346a, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) ( Public Law 104   170), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance petition ( PP 8E4992) by Huntsman Corporation, Houston, Texas. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner Huntsman. There were no comments received in response to the notice of filing. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.1001( c) be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propylene carbonate, also known as 1,3 Dioxolan 2 one, 4 methyl ( CAS Reg. No. 108   32   7). Section 408( b)( 2)( A)( i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance ( the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is `` safe.'' Section 408( b)( 2)( A)( ii) defines `` safe'' to mean that `` there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408( b)( 2)( C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to `` ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .'' EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. III. Human Health Assessment A. Toxicological Profile Consistent with section 408( b)( 2)( D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by propylene carbonate are discussed in this unit. The Agency has reviewed 12 toxicity studies using propylene carbonate as the test substance. The results of those reviews are listed in the following Table 1:

TABLE 1.   TOXICITY STUDIES USING PROPYLENE CARBONATE Study Type Results Acute oral ( rat) LD50 > 5,000 mg/ kg ( Toxicity Category IV)

Acute dermal ( rabbit) LD50 > 2,000 mg/ kg ( Toxicity Category III)

Primary eye irritation ( rabbit) Not a significant ocular irritant ( Toxicity Category III)

Primary dermal irritation ( Toxicity Category IV)

Developmental ( rat) Maternal NOAEL = 1,000 mg/ kg/ day Maternal LOAEL = 3,000 mg/ kg/ day based on mortality clinical signs and decreased food consumption Developmental NOAEL = 3,000 mg/ kg/ day Developmental LOAEL = 5,000 mg/ kg/ day based on increase in skeletal variations 113   week feeding ( rat) NOAEL = equal to or greater than 5,000 mg/ kg/ day ( HTD  highest dose tested) LOAEL = would be greater than 5,000 mg/ kg/ day TABLE 1.   TOXICITY STUDIES USING PROPYLENE CARBONATE   Continued Study Type Results 113   week inhalation ( rat) with neurotox NOAEL = 0.5 mg/ L/ day LOAEL = 1.0 mg/ L/ daybased on clinical signs in both sexes No evidence of neurotoxicpotential Cancer dermal ( skinpainting ( mouse) Negative, but dosing was considered inadequate 9   day inhalation ( rat) NOAEL = not determined  effects seen at lowest dose tested LOAEL = 1 mg/ L/ day based on clinical signs of toxicity ocular irritation Mouse micronucleus Not mutagenic UDS Negative Gene mutation( S. typhimurium) Negative B. Structure Activity Relationship Assessment For propylene carbonate, toxicity was assessed, in part, by a process called structure activity relationship ( SAR). In this process, the chemical's structural similarity to other chemicals ( for which data are available) is used to determine toxicity. For human health, this process, can be used to assess absorption and metabolism, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, developmental and reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, systemic effects, immunotoxicity, and sensitization and irritation. This is a qualitative assessment using terms such as good, not likely, poor, moderate, or high. For propylene carbonate the SAR assessment determined that the chemical was not structurally related to any known carcinogens. The following human exposures were examined as part of the analysis: Inhalation, dermal, exposures to the eyes, and drinking water. Absorption of propylene carbonate is expected to be good ( wellabsorbed via all routes ( oral, dermal and inhalation) based on physical/ chemical properties. There are concerns for effects on the liver and kidneys, solvent type neurotoxicity and developmental toxicity at high dose levels, and irritation to mucous VerDate jul< 14> 2003 14: 52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SER1. SGM 05SER1 52697 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Rules and Regulations membranes. The overall SAR rating for human health is low/ moderate concern. The SAR did note a concern for solvent neurotoxicity, i. e., neurotoxic effects that can occur due to `` high'' and/ or `` prolonged'' dermal and inhalation exposures to organic solvents. It should be noted that the inclusion of the phrase `` solvent type neurotoxicity'' in the SAR assessment does not necessarily indicate chemicalspecific concerns. By including this statement those performing the SAR assessment are acknowledging that the chemical is a member of a class of chemicals that can exhibit solvent neurotoxicity.

C. Conclusions The Agency used two sources of information to determine the toxicity of propylene carbonate: The 12 toxicity studies submitted by the petitioner and reviewed by the Agency, and a SAR assessment. The two sources of data support each other. However, results of the SAR Assessment are a type of predicted data based in part on surrogate data. There is actual data generated using propylene carbonate as the test substance, and actual data has precedence over predicted data. The Agency reviewed a propylene carbonate developmental toxicity study in the rat with a maternal no observed adverse effect level ( NOAEL) of 1,000 milligrams/ kilogram/ day ( mg/ kg/ day) and a maternal lowest observed adverse effect level ( LOAEL) of 3,000 mg/ kg/ day based on mortality, clinical signs and decreased food consumption. In the same study, the developmental NOAEL is 3,000 mg/ kg/ day and the developmental LOAEL is 5,000 mg/ kg/ day based on an increase in skeletal variations. In a propylene carbonate 13   week rat feeding study the NOAEL is equal to or greater than 5,000 mg/ kg/ day, the highest dose tested. A LOAEL was not identified in that study, but it would be even greater than 5,000 mg/ kg/ day. It is noted that each of these NOAELs is equal to or greater than 1,000 mg/ kg/ day. As a matter of practice, for both the developmental and the 13   week toxicity study, the Agency does not encourage testing above 1,000 mg/ kg/ day. The lack of effects at 1,000 mg/ kg/ day is considered adequate to define the toxicity, without pushing the dose levels higher until effects are apparent. The SAR assessment judged propylene carbonate to be of low/ moderate concern. It did not identify any carcinogenic concerns. One identified concern was for possible irritation to mucous membranes. This concern would involve the dermal and inhalation exposure routes and would be addressed through the use of protective equipment such as gloves and respirators, not through establishment of tolerance exemptions. A concern predicted by the SAR, based on its structural chemistry and chemical class, is for possible solvent neurotoxicity from exposure to propylene carbonate. As previously explained, this statement acknowledges that propylene carbonate is a member of a class of chemicals that can exhibit solvent neurotoxicity. However, the propylene carbonate data base includes a 13   week inhalation toxicity study in the rat with a neurotoxicity evaluation. Based on its review and evaluation of this inhalation toxicity study, the Agency determined that there was no evidence of neurotoxicity potential. The SAR also indicated a concern for developmental toxicity at high dose levels. However, the Agency reviewed a propylene carbonate developmental toxicity study in the rat with a maternal NOAEL of 1,000 mg/ kg/ day and a maternal LOAEL of 3,000 mg/ kg/ day based on mortality, clinical signs and decreased food consumption. In the same study, the developmental NOAEL is 3,000 mg/ kg/ day and the developmental LOAEL is 5,000 mg/ kg/ day based on increase in skeletal variations. Considering the NOAELs of greater than 1,000 mg/ kg/ day for the propylene carbonate toxicity studies and the overall judgement of low/ moderate concern from the SAR assessment, propylene carbonate is of low toxicological concern.

IV. Aggregate Exposures 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 from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings ( residential and other indoor uses). Over 1 million pounds of propylene carbonate are either produced or imported per year. Some of this propylene carbonate production is used as a chemical intermediate, in the production of other chemicals. Propylene carbonate has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use as an indirect food additive as a component of adhesives. According to 21 CFR 175.105, propylene carbonate can be a component of an adhesive used as part of `` articles intended for use in packaging, transporting, or holding food.'' Propylene carbonate is also used in cosmetics. Information on the internet ( Huntsman website) indicates that propylene carbonate is used in tub and tile cleaners, hard surface and floor cleaners that could be used in and around the home. The Agency has used various screening level models to estimate some of the existing levels of exposure, and those that could occur as a result of establishing this tolerance exemption. To assure protectiveness, these estimates are deliberately intended to over estimate exposure as shown in the following Table 2:

TABLE 2.   SCREENING LEVELS OF EXPOSURE USING PROPYLENE CARBONATE Type of Exposure Exposure Level Dietary  Food ( as a result of application to crops) Acute exposure: Less than 1 mg/ kg/ day at 95th percentile chronic exposure: Less than 1 mg/ kg/ day Dietary  Drinking Water Acute exposure: Much less than 1 mg/ kg/ day Chronic exposure: Much less than 1 mg/ kg/ day Residential ( as a result of using a cleaning product) Approximately 6 mg/ kg/ day Residential ( as a result of using a laundry detergent) Approximately 1 mg/ kg/ day Residential ( as a result of application to a lawn) Less than 1 mg/ kg/ day With one exception all of the screening level exposure estimates are in the range of or less than 1 mg/ kg/ day. The existing studies for propylene carbonate yielded NOAELs that were equal to or greater than 1,000 mg/ kg/ day. The screening level exposure estimates are orders of magnitude lower than these NOAELs. Even considering the reported uses, the use of propylene carbonate as an inert ingredient should result in human exposure far below any dose level that could possibly produce an adverse effect.

V. Cumulative Effects from Substances with a Common Mechanism of Toxicity Section 408( b)( 2)( D)( v) of the FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency VerDate jul< 14> 2003 14: 52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SER1. SGM 05SER1 52698 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Rules and Regulations consider`` available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and `` other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether propylene carbonate has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. 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 propylene carbonate and any other substances and propylene carbonate 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 propylene carbonate 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 athttp:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ cumulative/.

VI. Determination of Safety for U. S. Population, Infants and Children Based on the available data, the SAR assessment indicating low/ moderate concern and the data submitted by the petitioner, Huntsman Corporation, which indicate that the chemical is of low toxicological concern, EPA concludes that propylene carbonate does not pose a dietary risk under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Accordingly, EPA finds that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to propylene carbonate. Due to the expected low oral toxicity, a safety factor analysis has not been used to assess the risk. For the same reasons and especially considering the developmental toxicity NOAEL, the additional tenfold safety factor for the protection of infants and children is unnecessary. Based on the information in this preamble, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to residues of 1,3 Dioxolan 2 one, 4 methyl ( propylene carbonate). Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting 1,3 Dioxolan 2 one, 4 methyl( propylene carbonate) ( CAS Reg. No. 108   32   7) from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

VII. Other Considerations A. Endocrine Disruptors FQPA requires EPA to develop a screening program to determine whether certain substances, including all pesticide chemicals ( both inert and active ingredients), `` may have an effect in humans that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect. . .'' EPA has been working with interested stakeholders to develop a screening and testing program as well as a priority setting scheme. As the Agency proceeds with implementation of this program, further testing of products containing propylene carbonate for endocrine effects may be required.

B. Analytical Method( s) An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. Existing Tolerances There are no existing tolerances or tolerance exemptions for propylene carbonate.

D. International Tolerances The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for propylene carbonate nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any food crops at this time.

E. List 4A ( Minimal Risk) Classification The Agency established 40 CFR 180.950 ( see the rationale in the proposed rule published January 15, 2002 ( 67 FR 1925) ( FRL   6807   8)) to collect the tolerance exemptions for those substances classified as List 4A, i. e., minimal risk substances. As part of evaluating an inert ingredient and establishing the tolerance exemption, the Agency determines the chemical's list classification. The available data and the SAR assessment indicated propylene carbonate is of lower toxicity. Given the NOAELs of greater than 1,000 mg/ kg/ day and the acute toxicity studies that were category III and IV, it has been determined that propylene carbonate, also known as 1,3 Dioxolan 2 one, 4 methyl ( CAS Reg. No. 108   32   7) is to be classified as a List 4A inert ingredient. Thus, the tolerance exemption will be established in 40 CFR 180.950 instead of 40 CFR 180.1001( c) as requested by the petitioner, Huntsman. VIII. Conclusions Based on the information in the record, summarized in this preamble, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from aggregate exposure to residues of propylene carbonate ( CAS Reg. No. 108   32   7). Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting propylene carbonate from the requirement of a tolerance will be safe.

IX. Objections and Hearing Requests Under section 408( g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408( g) provides essentially the same process for persons to `` object '' to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408( d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.

A. What Do I Need to Do to File an Objection or Request a Hearing?

You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID numberOPP   2003   0284 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 4, 2003. 1. Filing the request. Your objection must specify the specific provisions in the regulation that you object to, and the grounds for the objections ( 40 CFR 178.25). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual issues( s) on which a hearing is requested, the requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence relied upon by the objector ( 40 CFR 178.27). Information submitted in connection with an objection or hearing request may be claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in VerDate jul< 14> 2003 14: 52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SER1. SGM 05SER1 52699 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the information that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk ( 1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is ( 703) 603   0061. 2. Tolerance fee payment. If you file an objection or request a hearing, you must also pay the fee prescribed by 40 CFR 180.33( i) or request a waiver of that fee pursuant to 40 CFR 180.33( m). You must mail the fee to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, Office of Pesticide Programs, P. O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Please identify the fee submission by labeling it `` Tolerance Petition Fees.'' EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement `` when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.'' For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at ( 703) 305   5697, by e mail at tompkins. jim@ epa. gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. 3. Copies for the Docket. In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in Unit IX. A., you should also send a copy of your request to the PIRIB for its inclusion in the official record that is described in Unit I. B. 1. Mail your copies, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0284, to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch, Information Resources and Services Division ( 7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001. In person or by courier, bring a copy to the location of the PIRIB described in Unit I. B. 1. You may also send an electronic copy of your request via e mail to: oppdocket epa. gov. Please use an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 6.1/ 8.0 or ASCII file format. Do not include any CBI in your electronic copy. You may also submit an electronic copy of your request at many Federal Depository Libraries.

B. When Will the Agency Grant a Request for a Hearing? A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues( s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested ( 40 CFR 178.32).

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance requirement under FFDCA section 408( d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866 due to its lack of significance, this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ( 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This final rule does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq., or impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA) ( Public Law 104   4). Nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994); or OMB review or any Agency action under Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( NTTAA), Public Law 104   113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note). Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408( d), such as the exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et seq.) do not apply. In addition, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitledFederalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure`` meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''`` Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers and food retailers, not States. This action does not alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408( n)( 4). For these same reasons, the Agency has determined that this rule does not have any `` tribal implications'' as described in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Executive Order 13175, requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure`` meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' `` Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have `` substantial direct effects on VerDate jul< 14> 2003 14: 52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SER1. SGM 05SER1 52700 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 172 / Friday, September 5, 2003 / Rules and Regulations one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.'' This rule will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

XI. Congressional Review Act 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 rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of this final rule in theFederal Register. This final rule is not a `` major rule'' as defined by 5 U. S. C. 804( 2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Dated: August 22, 2003. Peter Caulkins, Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

 Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180   [ AMENDED]

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

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

 2. Section 180.950 is amended by adding alphabetically the following ingredient to the table in paragraph ( e) to read as follows.

§ 180.950 Tolerance exemptions for minimal risk active and inert ingredients.

* * * * *

( e) * * *

Chemical CAS No.

* * * * * 1,3 Dioxolan 2 one, 4 methyl( propylene carbonate) ........................................................ 108   32   7 * * * * *

[ FR Doc. 03   22546 Filed 9   4   03; 8: 45am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 62 RIN 1660   AA29 National Flood Insurance Program ( NFIP); Assistance to Private Sector Property Insurers; Extension of Term of Arrangement AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA). Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Department of Homeland Security. ACTION: Interim final rule.

SUMMARY: FEMA is changing the current Financial Assistance/ Subsidy Arrangement ( the Arrangement) to extend its term of October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003, to a term of October 1, 2002, through December 31, 2003. The Arrangement defines the duties and responsibilities of insurers that sell and service insurance under the Write Your Own ( WYO) program. It also identifies the responsibilities of the Government to provide financial and technical assistance to these insurers. DATES: Effective October 1, 2003. Comments on this interim final rule, should be received on or before October 6, 2003. ADDRESSES: Please send your comments to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Room 840, Washington, DC 20472, ( facsimile) 202   646   4536, or ( e mail) rules@ fema. gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward L. Connor, FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 202   646   3429 ( Phone), 202 646   3445 ( facsimile), or Edward. Connor@ dhs. gov ( e mail). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 9, 2002, FEMA published in the Federal Register, 67 FR 51768, a final rule to revise the effective date of the Arrangement to agree with the new Arrangement year beginning October 1, 2002, and ending September 30, 2003. FEMA had planned to make significant changes in the Arrangement regarding litigation issues effective October 1, 2003. However, as the proposed rule for these changes has not yet been published in the Federal Register, it is not feasible to complete the rulemaking for an effective date of October 1, 2003. WYO insurers need to receive an offer to enter into the Arrangement each year well in advance of the beginning of the Arrangement year. By extending the current Arrangement for an additional 3 months, the revised Arrangement with the litigation changes can be effective January 1, 2004, instead of postponing these changes to October 1, 2004. WYO insurers can always elect to cease participation in the WYO program at any time, so any insurer not desiring to participate for the additional 3 months of this extension may cease participation as of October 1, 2003. Under this extension of the current Arrangement, the expense allowance provided for in Article III, Section B of APPENDIX A TO PART 62   FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FEDERAL INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION, FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE/ SUBSIDY ARRANGEMENT will remain the same for the additional 3 months as it is now, except there will be no additional expense allowance of up to two percentage points for meeting marketing goals for the three month extension. This additional expense allowance will be based on the period October 1, 2002, through September 30, 2003.

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 14: 52 Sep 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05SER1. SGM 05SER1