1	Based on the "Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table" (March 2013);
2	Based on proposed label (See Table 4).
3	Exposure Science Advisory Council Policy #9.1.
4	Dermal Dose = Dermal Unit Exposure (μg/lb ai) x Conversion Factor (0.001 mg/μg) x Application Rate (lb ai/acre or gal) x Area Treated or Amount  Handled Daily (A or gal/day) x DAF (%) / BW (kg).
5	Dermal MOE = Dermal NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Dermal Dose (mg/kg/day).

Table E.2.  Occupational Handler Non-Cancer Inhalation Exposure and Risk Estimates for Pyraclostrobin.
                               Exposure Scenario
                                     Crop
                      Baseline Inhalation Unit Exposure
                                (μg/lb ai)[1]
                                      Max
                                Applic Rate[2]
                                   (lb ai/A)
                    Area Treated or Amount Handled Daily[3]
                                  Inhalation
                                   Baseline
                                (no respirator)

                                     Dose
                                (mg/kg/day)[4]
                                    MOE[5]
                                   (LOC=30)
                              Mixer/Loader of WDG
                                  Groundboom
                                    Herbs
                                     8.96
                                     0.15
                                      80
                                    0.0014
                                      84
                                  Groundboom
                                     Dill
                                     8.96
                                     0.15
                                      200
                                    0.0034
                                      34
                             Applicator of Liquids
                                  Groundboom
                                     Herbs
                                     0.34
                                     0.15
                                      80
                                   0.000051
                                     1,100
                                  Groundboom
                                     Dill
                                     0.34
                                     0.15
                                      200
                                    0.00013
                                      440
                        Mixer/Loader/Applicator of WDG
                       Mechanically pressurized handgun
                                     Herbs
                                     Dill
                                      3.9
                                     0.030
                                   lb ai/gal
                                     1000
                                      gal
                                    0.0015
                                      130

NA: Not assessed
1	Based on the "Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table" (March 2013);
2	Based on proposed label (See Table 4).
3	Exposure Science Advisory Council Policy #9.1.
4	Inhalation Dose = Inhalation Unit Exposure (μg/lb ai) x Conversion Factor (0.001 mg/μg) x Application Rate (lb ai/acre or gal) x Area Treated or Amount  Handled Daily (A or gal/day) / BW (kg).
5	Inhalation MOE = Inhalation HED (mg/kg/day) / Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day).
	Where:
	Mixer/loader MOEs use HED (based on inhal rate 16.7 L/min) of 0.113 mg/kg/day
	Groundboom applicators MOEs use HED (based on inhal rate 8.3 L/min) of 0.056 mg/kg/day

Table E.3.  Occupational Post-application Non-Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates for Pyraclostrobin.
                                   Crop/Site
                                  Activities
                        Transfer Coefficient (cm[2]/hr)
                                    DFR[1]
                                  (ug/cm[2])
                                 Dermal Dose
                                (mg/kg/day)[2]
                                    MOE[3]
                                Dill and Herbs
                                  Irrigation
                                   (Hand Set)
                                     1,900
                                     0.42
                                     0.013
                                      380

                                   Scouting
                                     1,100

                                    0.0075
                                      660

                                 Hand weeding
                                      70

                                    0.00048
                                    10,000
1 DFR = Application Rate x F x (1-D)t x 4.54E8 ug/lb x 2.47E-8 acre/cm[2]; where F = 0.25 and D = 0.10 per day
2	Daily Dermal Dose = [DFR (ug/cm[2]) x Transfer Coefficient x 0.001 mg/ug x 8 hrs/day x dermal absorption (14%)]  BW (69 kg).
3	MOE = POD (mg/kg/day) / Daily Dermal Dose.

Appendix F.  Summaries of Field Residue Data

Table F.1.   Summary of Residue Data from Field Trials with Pyraclostrobin.
Crop Matrix
                              Total Applic. Rate
                                   (lb ai/A)
                                  PHI (days)
Combined Residue Levels of Pyraclostrobin and its Metabolite BF 500-3 (ppm)[1]

                                       n
                                     Min.
                                     Max.
                                     HAFT
                                    Median
                                    (STMdR)
                                     Mean
                                    (STMR)
                                   Std. Dev.
BASIL.  Proposed use pattern:  Two foliar sprays at 0.15 lb ai/A/application for a seasonal rate of 0.3 lb ai/A with a 0-day PHI.
Fresh Basil
                                   0.80-0.83
                                       0
                                       8
                                      7.2
                                     21.1
                                     16.1
                                      8.9
                                     10.9
                                      4.5

                                      3-4
                                       8
                                      1.3
                                      7.5
                                      7.4
                                      4.9
                                      4.8
                                      2.6
Dried Basil

                                       0
                                       4
                                     40.1
                                     80.6
                                     80.6
                                     74.7
                                     67.5
                                     18.5
CHIVES.  Proposed use pattern:  Two foliar sprays at 0.15 lb ai/A/application for a seasonal rate of 0.3 lb ai/A with a 0-day PHI.
Chives
                                   0.81-0.83
                                       0
                                       8
                                      0.7
                                      8.8
                                      7.8
                                      6.9
                                      5.8
                                      3.1
DILL.  Proposed use pattern:  Two foliar sprays at 0.15 lb ai/A/application for a seasonal rate of 0.3 lb ai/A with a 0-day PHI.
Dill weed
                                   0.81-0.82
                                       0
                                       8
                                     3.98
                                     19.54
                                     19.01
                                     9.66
                                     10.46
                                     5.79
Dill Seed
0.80-0.83
                                       0
                                       6
                                     3.60
                                     22.60
                                     21.20
                                     18.30
                                     14.45
                                     8.34
[1] n = number of samples, typically 2X number of trials.  Min = lowest replicate sample value.  Max = highest replicate sample value.  HAFT = highest average field trial.  STMdR = median of average field trials.  Mean = mean of average field trials.

Appendix G.  International Residue Limits Status Sheet

                      Pyraclostrobin (099100; 02/19/2013)
Summary of US and International Tolerances and Maximum Residue Limits
Residue Definition:
US
Canada
Mexico[2]
Codex[3]
40 CFR §180.582.  Plants:  Tolerances are established for residues of the fungicide pyraclostrobin, including its metabolites and degradates.  Compliance with the tolerance levels is to be determined by measuring on the sum of pyraclostrobin (carbamic acid, [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H- pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxy-, methyl ester) and its desmethoxy metabolite (methyl N-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl carbamate), calculated as the stoichiometric  equivalent of pyraclostrobin
methyl [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]methoxycarbamate, including the metabolite [2-[[[1-(4-chlorophenyl)-1H-pyrazol-3-
yl]oxy]methyl]phenyl]carbamate
-
Pyraclostrobin.  Residue is NOT fat soluble.
Commodity[1]
Tolerance (ppm) /Maximum Residue Limit (ppm)

                                      US
Canada
Mexico[2]
Codex[3]
Herb, subgroup 19A
(fresh and dried)
                                      40
None

None
Dill, seed
                                      40
None

None
Nut, tree, group 14-12, except pistachio
                                     0.04
0.04

0.02 (*)
Fruit, stone, group 12-12
                                      2.5
0.7
(apricot, nectarine, peach, plumcot, plum cherries)

Cherries 3;
Peach/nectarine 0.3;
Plum 0.8
[1] Includes only commodities of interest for this action.  Tolerance values should be the HED recommendations and not those proposed by the applicant.
2 Mexico adopts US tolerances and/or Codex MRLs for its export purposes.

3 * = absent at the limit of quantitation; Po = postharvest treatment, such as treatment of stored grains.  PoP = processed postharvest treated commodity, such as processing of treated stored wheat. (fat) = to be measured on the fat portion of the sample. MRLs indicated as proposed have not been finalized by the CCPR and the CAC.


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 60525]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18897]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98232; File No. SR-Phlx-2023-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To
Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as
Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Make Permanent Certain P.M.-Settled
Pilots

August 28, 2023.
    On February 23, 2023, 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
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
make permanent the pilot program to permit the listing and trading of
options based on 1/100 the value of the Nasdaq-100 Index and the
Exchange's nonstandard expirations pilot program. The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on March 2,
2023.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 96980 (February 24,
2023), 88 FR 13161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 7, 2023, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the
Commission designated a longer period within which to approve the
proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.\5\ On May 11, 2023, the Exchange submitted Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change (``Amendment No. 1'').\6\ On May 31, 2023, the
Commission instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule change and published Amendment No. 1 for
notice and comment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97260, 88 FR 22498
(April 13, 2023).
    \6\ Amendment No. 1 is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-phlx-2023-07/srphlx202307.htm.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97624, 88 FR 37107
(June 6, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act \8\ provides that, after
initiating proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving
or disapproving the proposed rule change not later than 180 days after
the date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule
change. The Commission may extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change, however, by not
more than 60 days if the Commission determines that a longer period is
appropriate and publishes reasons for such determination. The proposed
rule change was published for notice and comment in the Federal
Register on March 2, 2023.\9\ The 180th day after publication of the
proposed rule change is August 29, 2023. The Commission is extending
the time period for approving or disapproving the proposed rule change
for an additional 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See supra note 3 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed
rule change and the issues raised therein. Accordingly, the Commission,
pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,\10\ designates
October 28, 2023, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-Phlx-2023-
07).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18897 Filed 8-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Notice of Filing of a Pesticide Petition for the Establishment of
Tolerances for Residues of Triflusulfuron Methyl in or on Food
Commodities

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	EPA Registration Division contact: Laura Nollen,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Petition Number PP# 9E7669

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

	EPA has received a pesticide petition, PP# 9E7669, from IR-4, 500
College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton, New Jersey, 08540, proposing,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing
tolerances for residues of triflusulfuron methyl, 2
[[[[[4-(dimethylamino)-6-(2,2,2-trifluoroethoxy)-1,3,5-triazin-2-yl]amin
o]carbonyl]amino]sulfonyl]-3-methylbenzoate in or on the raw
agricultural commodity beet, garden, roots at 0.01 ppm and beet, garden,
tops at 0.02 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the
FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the  sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant metabolism. Metabolism of triflusulfuron methyl in sugarbeets
was studied using triflusulfuron methyl labeled separately with
carbon-14 in the triazine ring and in the ester carbonyl group.
Triflusulfuron   methyl was extensively metabolized by sugar beets
treated at the 4-8-leaf growth stage with 100 grams active ingredient
per half acre (g ai/ha). Triflusulfuron methyl levels dropped rapidly
from 3 ppm in the sample taken on the day of the treatment to < 0.01 ppm
14 days after treatment. The initial step in the metabolic breakdown of
triflusulfuron methyl involves cleavage of the sulfonylurea bridge,
which is followed by further metabolism of the initial degradates. The
levels of principal radiolabeled metabolites found in plant samples (N-
desmethyl triazine amine, N,N-bis-desmethyl triazine amine, acid
sulfonamide, and its glucose conjugate) dropped to < 0.01 ppm at
maturity. No significant (> 0.01 ppm) residues of triflusulfuron methyl
or its radiolabeled metabolites were detected in mature roots or
foliage.

2. Analytical method.  A method for quantitation of Triflusulfuron
methyl in garden beets uses a high performance liquid chromatograph
(HPLC) with eluent and column-switching and ultra-violet (UV) detection
at 232 nm for the determination of triflusulfuron methyl residues in
garden beet foliage and roots. Sample clean-up is achieved through
reversed phase chromatography using eluent-switching. Column-switching
provides the resolution required for quantitation of triflusulfuron
methyl. The calculated LOQ values were 0.0069 ppm for roots and 0.0044
ppm on tops (leaves) respectively. Triflusulfuron methyl is detected at
levels as low as 0.005 ppm. Triflusulfuron methyl recoveries averaged
99% for foliage and 110% for roots.

3. Magnitude of residues

Residue trials were conducted on garden beets at 8 locations across the
U.S. and Canada.  The nature of triflusulfuron methyl residue in garden
beets is adequately understood through the sugar beet metabolism
studies.    These residue data were the basis for establishing
tolerances for garden beet tops and roots.

B. Toxicological Profile

1. Acute toxicity.

Based on EPA criteria, technical triflusulfuron methyl is in acute
toxicity Category IV for oral and inhalation routes of exposure, and for
dermal irritation. Triflusulfuron methyl is in acute toxicity Category
III for dermal toxicity and for eye irritation.  Acute oral toxicity in
rats LD50 5,000 mg/kg; acute dermal toxicity in rabbits LD50 2,000
mg/kg; and acute inhalation toxicity in rats LC50 5.1 mg/L. Primary eye
irritation in rabbits, non-irritant primary dermal irritation in
rabbits, non- irritant dermal sensitization in guinea pigs, and
non-sensitizer acute neurotoxicity no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) = 2,000 mg/kg/day highest dose tested (HDT).

2. Genotoxicity.

Mutagenicity data for technical triflusulfuron methyl include a reverse
mutation assay (Ames Test) which was negative at concentrations up to
1,000µ mg/plate, the HDT; a Salmonella typhimurium plate incorporation
assay which was negative at concentrations up to 3,000µ mg/plate, HDT;
and a Chinese hamster ovary/hypoxanthine-guanine (CHO/HPRT) assay which
was negative at concentrations up to 2,000 mg/kg/day, HDT. A chromosomal
aberration/ human lymphocyte assay was positive in the presence of
metabolic activation at concentrations greater than or equal to 1,500µ
mg/mL. A second chromosomal aberration/human lymphocyte assay was
positive in the presence of metabolic activation at concentrations of
2,000 µ mg/mL. Results in the absence of metabolic activation were
inconclusive for both chromosomal aberration studies. The mouse bone
marrow micronucleus test was negative at doses up to 5,000 mg/kg, HDT.
In three Salmonella typhimurium plate incorporation assays, metabolites
of triflusulfuron methyl were negative up to 5,000µ mg/plate, HDT.

3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

In a 2-generation rat reproduction study, rats were fed dosages of 0,
0.588, 5.81, 44.0 and 89.5 mg/kg/day (males) and 0, 0.764, 7.75, 58.0,
and 115 mg/kg/days (females) with a reproductive toxicity NOAEL equal to
or greater than 89.5 and 115 mg/kg/day for males and females,
respectively, based on the absence of reproductive effects in rats at
the HDT. The NOAEL for systemic toxicity was 5.81 and 7.75 mg/kg/day for
males and females, respectively based on decreased body weight/body
weight gain (bwt/bwt gain) and food efficiency in males and females, and
decreased weights of offspring from the F0 generation on days 14 and 21
post-partum at 44.0 and 58.0 mg/kg/day in males and females,
respectively.

Technical triflusulfuron methyl was evaluated for developmental toxicity
potential in rats and rabbits. Rats were fed dosages of 0, 30, 120,
350, and 1,000 mg/kg/day with a developmental NOAEL equal to or greater
than 1,000 mg/kg/day (HDT) and a maternal toxicity NOAEL of 120 mg/kg/
day with a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 350 mg/kg/
day based on reduced body weight gain in the 350 and 1,000 mg/kg/day
animals, reduced food consumption in the 1,000 mg/kg/day animals and
lower food efficiency in the 350 and 1,000 mg/kg/day. Rabbits were fed
dosages of 0, 15, 90, 270, and 800 mg/kg/day with a NOAEL for
developmental toxicity of 90 mg/kg/day with a LOAEL of 270 mg/kg/day
based on the increase in abortions and a decrease in mean fetal body
weight (bwt). The NOAEL for maternal toxicity is 90 mg/kg/day with a
LOAEL of 270 mg/kg/day based on the maternal death and abortions, and
increase in clinical signs noted in the mid-high and high dose groups,
decreased food efficiency and increased post mortem finding describing
gastrointestinal effects.

4. Subchronic toxicity.

The subchronic toxicity of technical triflusulfuron methyl was evaluated
in rabbits, rats, and dogs.

In a 21-day dermal toxicity study with rabbits fed dosages of 50, 300,
or 1,000 mg/kg/day, the systemic toxicity NOAEL was equal to or greater
than 1,000 mg/kg/day for males and females. The dermal toxicity NOAEL
was equal to or greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day for males and females.

Two 90-day studies were conducted in the rat. In one study, rats were
fed dosages of 6.2, 127, 646, or 965 mg/kg/day (males) or 7.54, 150,
774, or 1,070 mg/kg/day (females). Triflusulfuron methyl exhibited
subchronic toxicity at dietary concentrations of 2,000 ppm (127 and 150
mg/kg/day for males and females) or greater in the form of decreased
body weights, decreased body weight gains, decreased food efficiency,
increased mean relative liver weights, and regenerative anemia. The
NOAEL was 6.2 mg/kg/day (males) and 7.54 mg/kg/day (females).

In another study, rats were fed dosages of 6.56, 133, 658, or 1,036
mg/kg/day (males) or 7.71, 153, 783, or 1,124 mg/kg/day (females).
Triflusulfuron methyl showed subchronic toxicity at dietary
concentrations of 2,000 ppm (133 and 153 mg/kg/day for males and
females) or greater in the form of decreased body weight, decreased
body weight gain, decreased food efficiency, and increased mean liver
weights. The NOAEL was 6.56 mg/kg/day (males) and 7.71 mg/kg/day
(females).

A subchronic neurotoxicity study with rats fed dosages of 0, 6.1,  46.1,
92.7, or 186.2 mg/kg/day (males) or 7.1, 51.6, 104.1, or 205.2
mg/kg/day (females), resulted in a NOAEL of 92.7 (males) and 7.1 mg/kg/
day (females). This was based on decreased body weight/body weight gain
at the LOAEL of 186.2 mg/kg/day (males) and 51.6 mg/kg/day (females).

In another 90-day subchronic study, dogs were fed dosages of 3.87,
146.1, or 267.6 mg/kg/day (males) or 3.72, 159.9, or 250.7 mg/kg/day
(females). Triflusulfuron methyl was found to be hepatotoxic at 4,000
ppm (146.1 mg/kg/day males and 159.9 mg/kg/day females), and greater
elevated hepatic enzyme levels and postmortem evidence, including
elevation in liver weights and microscopic evidence of bile stasis.
Other microscopic findings considered to be treatment related were
testicular atrophy and decreased testicular weights and hypercellularity
of the sternal and femoral bone marrow, with a corresponding increase in
reticulocyte and leukocyte counts seen in the  high-dose males and
females. Based on the microscopic findings in the liver and testes of
the 4,000 ppm and greater treated animals, the NOAEL was 3.87 mg/kg/day
(males) and 3.72 mg/kg/day (females).

5. Chronic toxicity.

The chronic toxicity of technical triflusulfuron methyl was evaluated in
dogs, mice, and rats. In a 1- year oral toxicity study with dogs fed
dosages of 1.0, 26.9, 111.6 mg/  kg/day (males) and 1.2, 27.7, and 95.5
mg/kg/day (females), the NOAEL  for males was 26.9 mg/kg/day; this was
based on increases in alkaline  phosphatase, liver weight, and incidence
of minimal centrilobular  hypertrophy at the LOAEL of 111.6. For
females, the NOAEL was 27.7 mg/kg/day; this was based on increased liver
weight and increased incidence of minimal centrilobular hepatocellular
hypertrophy at the LOAEL of 95.5 mg/kg/day.

In an 18-month carcinogenicity study, mice were fed dosages of 1.37,
20.9, 349, and 1,024 mg/kg/day (males) and 1.86, 27.7, 488, and 1,360
mg/kg/day (females). Male mice had statistically significant positive
trends for hepatocellular adenomas and for combined adenoma/ carcinoma
(driven entirely by adenomas) at 349 and 1,024 mg/kg/day.  These
increases were not significant in pair-wise comparisons with control
groups and were determined not to be carcinogenic effects by the
Carcinogenicity Peer Review Committee (CPRC). The NOAEL was based on
body and organ weight effects and was 20.9 mg/kg/day (males) and 27.7
mg/kg/day (females).

In the combined chronic toxicity/ carcinogenicity study, rats were fed
dosages of 0, 0.406, 4.06, 30.6, and 64.5 mg/kg/day (males) and 0,
0.546, 5.47, 41.5, and 87.7 mg/kg/day (females). Male rats have a
significant increasing trend and significant differences in pair-wise
comparisons of the 30.6 and 64.5 mg/kg/day dose groups with controls for
interstitial cell adenomas.  This effect was determined to be a
carcinogenic effect by the CPRC. No carcinogenic effects were noted in
females up to and including 87.7 mg/ kg/day HDT. The LOAEL for chronic
toxicity is 30.6 mg/kg/day (males) and 41.5 (females) based on decreased
body weight and body weight gain, alternations in the hematology
parameters (males predominately) and an increased incidence of
interstitial cell hyperplasia in males. The NOAEL for chronic toxicity
is 4.06 mg/kg/day (males) and 5.47 mg/kg/day (females). This value is
adjusted to the lowest concentration level of the chemical at this
dosage (60%), resulting in NOAELs of 2.44 mg/kg/ day (males) and 3.28
mg/kg/day (females).

6. Animal metabolism.

For triflusulfuron methyl, in both the rat and the goat, a majority of
the administrated dose was excreted in feces and urine. The
biotransformation pathway for triflusulfuron methyl in the rat and the
goat was similar. The major pathway was demethylation of the
dimethylamino substituent on the triazine ring.  The intermediate
hydroxylated metabolite was also present. The secondary
biotransformation pathway was clevage of the sulfonylurea bridge to form
methyl saccharin, N-desmethyl triazine amine and N, N- bis-desmethyl
triazine amine. In the lactating goat, triflusulfuron methyl was not
excreted to any appreciable level in the milk. Levels of the ester
carbonyl-derived residues were generally below the limit of reliable
measurement (0.0006µ mg equivalent triflusulfuron methyl/mL) and
triazine-derived residues reached a daily level of about 0.001 ppm.
Therefore, the metabolic pathways in rats and lactating goats were very
similar. There were no significant plant metabolites of triflusulfuron
methyl that were not found in the rat or goat metabolism studies. In
the unlikely event that triflusulfuron methyl were to enter the
livestock diet, triflusulfuron methyl and its metabolites would be
rapidly excreted and would not accumulate in meat, meat by-products, or
milk.

7. Metabolite toxicology.

The approximate lethal dose (ALD) of the degradation product,
N,N-bis-desmethyl triazine amine, in male rats was  450 mg/kg/day. Rats
were fed dose rates of 200, 300, 450, 670, 1,000, and 2,300 mg/kg of
triflusulfuron methyl. Deaths occurred up to test day 7 in rats dosed at
450 mg/kg body weight and above. Clinical signs of toxicity were
observed in lethally and nonlethally dosed rats. In an in vitro gene
mutation study, N,N,-bis-desmethyl triazine amine was not  mutagenic in
Salmonella typhimurium up to a dose of 5,000µ mg/ plate. For the
degradation product, triazine amine, the ALD in male rats was 670
mg/kg/day. The test substance dose was 200, 300, 450, 670, 1,000, or
2,300 mg/kg. Deaths occurred up to test day 4 in rats dosed at 670 mg/kg
and above. Clinical signs of toxicity were observed in lethally and
nonlethally dosed animals. In an in vitro gene mutation study, triazine
amine was not mutagenic in Salmonella typhimurium up to a dose of
5,000µ mg/plate.

8. Endocrine disruption.

No special studies investigating potential estrogenic or other endocrine
effects of methyl have been conducted.  However, the standard battery of
required toxicology studies has been completed. These include an
evaluation of the potential effects on reproduction and development, and
an evaluation of the pathology of the endocrine organs following
repeated or long-term exposure to doses that far exceed likely human
exposures. Based on these studies there is no evidence to suggest that
triflusulfuron methyl has an adverse effect on the endocrine system.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary Exposure

The chronic reference dose (cRfD) of 0.024 mg/kg/day is based on the
NOEL of 2.44 mg/kg/day from a chronic rat feeding study and a 100X
safety factor.

The residue of concern, as listed at 40 CFR 180.492, is parent
triflusulfuron methyl only.

2. Food

a. Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

Dietary exposure, resulting from the current and proposed uses of
triflusulfuron methyl on sugar beets, chicory, and garden beets, is well
within the acceptable limits for all sectors of the population, as
predicted by both the Chronic and Acute Modules of the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model with Food Commodity Intake Database (DEEM-FCIDTM,
Exponent, Inc., 2003 Version 2.14).  The percentage or proportion of a
crop that is treated can have a significant effect on the exposure
profile.  In this case, it was assumed for all crops that 100% was
treated with triflusulfuron methyl.

The predicted chronic exposure for the U.S. population was 0.000015
mg/kg bw/day.  The population subgroup with the highest predicted level
of chronic exposure was the children 3-5 years subgroup with an exposure
of 0.000041 mg/kg bw/day.  Based on a chronic NOEL of 2.44 mg/kg bw/day
and a 100-fold safety factor, the cRfD would be 0.024 mg/kg bw/day.  For
both the U.S. population and the children 3-5 years subgroup, the
predicted exposure is equivalent to less than 1% of the cRfD.  Since the
predicted exposures, expressed as percentages of the cRfD, are well
below 100%, there is reasonable certainty that no chronic effects would
result from dietary exposure to triflusulfuron methyl.

b. Acute Dietary Exposure

There are no effects attributable to a single, oral dose of
triflusulfuron methyl. Therefore, an acute dietary risk assessment was
not conducted.

3. Drinking Water

Based on the PRZM/EXAMS and SCI-GROW models the EECs of triflusulfuron
methyl for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.005 ppb for surface
water and 0.5 ug/L (micrograms/Liter) for ground water.  There was
little change from the food-only dietary risk assessments when the
higher ground water concentration was included in the chronic dietary
risk assessment; the predicted exposure for the general population was
0.000025 mg/kg/day, less than 1% of the cRfD, and the predicted exposure
for the most sensitive subpopulation, children 3-5 years, was 0.000056
mg/kg/day, less than 1% of the cRfD.  Thus, it can be concluded that the
chronic dietary exposure of triflusulfuron methyl, including the
contribution of drinking water, clearly meets the standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

4. Non-Dietary Exposure

Triflusulfuron methyl is not registered for any use which could result
in non-occupational or non-dietary exposure to the general population.

D. Cumulative Effects

Triflusulfuron methyl belongs to the sulfonylurea class of crop
protection chemicals. Other structurally similar compounds in this class
are registered as herbicides. However, the herbicidal activity of
sulfonylureas is due to the inhibition of acetolactate synthase (ALS),
an enzyme found only in plants. This enzyme is part of the biosynthesis
pathway leading to the formation of branched chain amino acids. Animals
lack ALS and this biosynthetic pathway. This lack of ALS contributes to
the relatively low toxicity of sulfonylurea herbicides in animals. There
is no reliable information that would indicate or suggest that
triflusulfuron methyl has any toxic effects on mammals that would be
cumulative with those of any other chemical.

E. Safety Determination

Based on data and information submitted by DuPont, EPA previously
determined that the establishment of tolerances of triflusulfuron methyl
on the sugar beets and chicory raw agricultural commodities would
protect the public health, including the health of infants and children.

Establishment of new tolerances for triflusulfuron methyl on beet,
garden, roots at 0.01 ppm and beet, garden, tops at 0.02 ppm will also
not adversely impact public health.

1. U.S. Population

Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicology database,
and using the conservative assumptions presented earlier, EPA has
established a cRfD of 0.024 mg/kg/day. This was based on the NOEL for
the chronic rat study, 2.44 mg/kg/day, and a 100-fold safety factor. It
has been concluded that the chronic dietary exposure was less than 1% of
the cRfD.  Generally, exposure below 100% of the cRfD are of no concern
because it represents the level at or below which daily dietary exposure
over a lifetime will not pose appreciable risk to human health. Thus,
there is reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic
exposures to triflusulfuron methyl residues.

2. Infants and Children

In assessing the potential for additional sensitivity of infants and
children to residues of triflusulfuron methyl, data from the previously
discussed developmental and multigeneration reproductive toxicity
studies were considered.

Developmental studies are designed to evaluate adverse effects on the
developing organism resulting from pesticide exposure during pre-natal
development. Reproduction studies provide information relating to
reproductive and other effects on adults and offspring from pre-natal
and post-natal exposures to the pesticide. The studies with
triflusulfuron methyl demonstrated no evidence of developmental toxicity
at exposures below those causing maternal toxicity.  This indicates that
developing animals are not more sensitive to the effects of
triflusulfuron methyl administration than adults.

FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA may apply an additional uncertainty
factor for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to
account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the
database.  Based on current toxicological data requirements, the
database for triflusulfuron methyl relative to pre- and post-natal
effects for children is complete.  The sub-population with the highest
level of chronic exposure was Children 3-5 years, for whom exposure was
less than 1% of the cRfD. Based on these conservative analyses, there is
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children
from aggregate exposures to triflusulfuron methyl.

F. International Tolerances

There is neither a Codex proposal, nor a Canadian or Mexican tolerance
for garden beets.

  Interregional Research Number 4 (IR-4)
               	Triflusulfuron Methyl

	Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  8


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10519-10521]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02838]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79983; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change by Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Modify Its Market
Maker and Other Market Participant Transaction Fees

February 7, 2017.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 January 27, 2017, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX Options'' 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 Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX'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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase the per
contract surcharge assessed for transactions by all market
participants, except for Priority Customers,\3\ which remove liquidity
against a resting Priority Customer complex order \4\ on the strategy
book for standard option classes in the Penny Pilot Program \5\
(``Penny classes'') and for standard option classes which are not in
the Penny Pilot Program (``Non-Penny classes'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Priority Customer'' means a person or entity that (i) is
not a broker or dealer in securities, and (ii) does not place more
than 390 orders in listed options per day on average during a
calendar month for its own beneficial accounts(s). See Exchange Rule
100.
    \4\ A ``complex order'' is any order involving the concurrent
purchase and/or sale of two or more different options in the same
underlying security (the ``legs'' or ``components'' of the complex
order), for the same account, in a ratio that is equal to or greater
than one-to-three (.333) and less than or equal to three-to-one
(3.00) and for the purposes of executing a particular investment
strategy. A complex order can also be a ``stock-option'' order,
which is an order to buy or sell a stated number of units of an
underlying security coupled with the purchase or sale of options
contract(s) on the opposite side of the market, subject to certain
contingencies set forth in the proposed rules governing complex
orders. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78620 (August 18,
2016), 81 FR 58770 (August 25, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-26).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 78080 (June 15,
2016), 81 FR 40377 (June 21, 2016)(SR-MIAX-2016-16); 79432 (November
30, 2016), 81 FR 87990 (December 6, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-45).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market Maker Transaction Fees
    Section 1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule sets forth the Exchange's Market
Maker \6\ Transaction Fees (the ``Sliding Scale''). The Exchange
assesses a per contract transaction fee on a Market Maker for the
execution of simple orders and quotes and complex orders. The amount of
the transaction fee is based on the Market Maker's percentage of total
national market maker volume that trades on the Exchange during a
particular calendar month and the Exchange aggregates the volume
executed by the Members in both simple orders and quotes and complex
orders for purposes of determining the applicable tier and
corresponding per contract transaction fee amount.\7\ In addition, the
amount of the transaction fee is also based on which tier the Members
and their affiliates reach in the Priority Customer Rebate Program.
Members who reach Tier 3 or higher are charged a different set of rates
than those who don't for simple orders and quotes and complex orders.
The transaction fees are assessable to all Market Makers for
transactions in all products (except for mini-options, for which there
are separate product fees), in both Penny classes and Non-Penny
classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to Lead Market Makers
(``LMMs''), Primary Lead Market Makers (``PLMMs''), and Registered
Market Makers (``RMMs'') collectively. See Exchange Rule 100. A
Directed Order Lead Market Maker (``DLMM'') and Directed Primary
Lead Market Maker (``DPLMM'') is a party to a transaction being
allocated to the LMM or PLMM and is the result of an order that has
been directed to the LMM or PLMM. See Fee Schedule note 2.
    \7\ The calculation of the volume thresholds does not include
QCC Orders, PRIME AOC Responses, and PRIME Participating Quotes or
Orders. For a discussion of these exclusions, see Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 78299 (July 12, 2016), 81 FR 46734 (July
18, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange assesses one per contract fee for
complex orders in each tier for Penny classes, and one per contract fee
for complex orders in Non-Penny classes, with a surcharge for removing
liquidity in a specific scenario, as described below. For simple orders
and quotes, the Sliding Scale assesses a per contract transaction fee,
which is based upon whether the Market Maker is a ``maker'' or a
``taker.'' \8\ As an incentive for Market Makers to provide liquidity
on the Exchange, the Exchange's ``maker'' fees are lower than the
``taker'' fees. The Exchange does not distinguish between a ``maker''
and a ``taker'' for complex order executions as it does in the
traditional construct for simple orders and quotes and instead assesses
the per contract transaction fee for all executions and a surcharge of
$0.08 per executed contract for executions in complex orders assessed
to a Market Maker (and all other market participants except Priority
Customers) when it removes liquidity by trading against a Priority
Customer order that is resting on the Strategy Book \9\ (each a ``Taker
Surcharge''). The purpose of the Taker Surcharge is to encourage
Members to add liquidity to the Strategy Book, and to recoup costs
associated with the execution of complex orders on the Strategy Book.
The Exchange believes that assessing the Taker Surcharge only on
participants removing liquidity effectively subsidizes, and thus
encourages the posting of liquidity, which benefits investors and the
public in the form of a deeper, more liquid marketplace. This Taker
Surcharge is

substantially similar in structure and amount to a CBOE surcharge of
the same type.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 78519 (August 9,
2016), 81 FR 54162 (August 15, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-21); 79157
(October 26, 2016), 81 FR 75885 (November 1, 2016 (SR-MIAX-2016-38).
    \9\ The ``Strategy Book'' is the Exchange's electronic book of
complex orders and complex quotes. See Exchange Rule 518(a)(17).
    \10\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Complex Taker Fee, and note 35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to increase the Taker Surcharge assessable to
Market Makers from $0.08 to $0.10. The increase in the Taker Surcharge
is similar to the increase that was recently made by CBOE with regard
to its taker surcharge.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See SR-CBOE-2017-008, filed on January 17, 2017, posted on
the CBOE Web site (www.cboe.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Market Participant Transaction Fees
    Section (1)(a)(ii) of the Fee Schedule sets forth transaction fees
for Other Market Participants, including Priority Customers, Public
Customers \12\ that are not Priority Customers, non-MIAX Options Market
Makers, non-Member Broker-Dealers, and Firms.\13\ The Exchange
currently assesses on these market participants, except for Priority
Customers, a per contract transaction fee for simple and complex order
executions. The transaction fees apply to the listed participants for
transactions in all products (except mini-options, for which there are
separate product fees), with fees established for Penny classes and
separate fees for Non-Penny classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The term ``Public Customer'' means a person that is not a
broker or dealer in securities. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \13\ A ``Firm'' fee is assessed on a MIAX Electronic Exchange
Member ``EEM'' that enters an order that is executed for an account
identified by the EEM for clearing in the Options Clearing
Corporation (``OCC'') ``Firm'' range. See Fee Schedule, Section
(1)(a)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also assesses the same $0.08 per contract Taker
Surcharge that it assesses on Market Makers for removing liquidity
against a resting Priority Customer on the Strategy Book on the above-
indicated other market participants, specifically: (i) Public Customers
that are not Priority Customers; (ii) non-MIAX Options Market Makers;
(iii) non-Member Broker-Dealers; and (iv) Firms.
    The Exchange proposes to also increase the $0.08 per contract Taker
Surcharge assessable to all of the other market participants indicated
above to $0.10 per contract. As stated above, the Exchange believes
that assessing the Take Surcharge only on participants removing
liquidity effectively subsidizes, and thus encourages the posting of
liquidity, which benefits investors and the public in the form of a
deeper, more liquid marketplace.
    All other aspects of the transaction fees assessable to Market
Makers and to the other indicated market participants other than
Priority Customers by the Exchange will remain unchanged. Transaction
fees for Priority Customers will remain unchanged. The proposed rule
changes are scheduled to become operative February 1, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its fee schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \14\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in that it
is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,
and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\ in that it is designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open
market and a national market system and, in general, to protect
investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) [sic] and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Taker Surcharge for Market
Makers and other participants for removing liquidity by trading against
a Priority Customer order on the Strategy Book is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \17\ because it applies equally to all
participants that remove Priority Customer liquidity from the Strategy
Book, and does not apply to participants whose orders or quotes resting
on the Strategy Book are executed against Priority Customer complex
orders on the Strategy Book. Assessing the Taker Surcharge to market
participants who take liquidity from Priority Customers is reasonable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it will provide MIAX Options
Market Makers and other participants with equal surcharges for removing
liquidity, and no surcharge for resting liquidity. As stated above,
this is substantially similar to a surcharge assessed on another
exchange.\18\ The Exchange notes that, although this represents a
slight fee increase, the Exchange believes that this increase is fair
and equitable because the Exchange offers technology with unique risk
mitigation features not available elsewhere, such as the Implied Away
Best Bid or Offer (``ixABBO'') Price Protection, and the increase will
help offset the credits given to complex orders under the Exchange's
Priority Customer Rebate Program (``PCRP'') \19\ and the Professional
Rebate Program (``PRP'').\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \18\ See supra notes 10 and 11.
    \19\ Under the PCRP, MIAX Options credits each Member the per
contract amount resulting from each Priority Customer order
transmitted by that Member which is executed electronically on the
Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes (excluding, in simple
or complex as applicable, QCC Orders, mini-options, Priority
Customer-to-Priority Customer Orders, PRIME AOC Responses, PRIME
Contra-side Orders, PRIME Orders for which both the Agency and
Contra-side Order are Priority Customers, and executions related to
contracts that are routed to one or more exchanges in connection
with the Options Order Protection and Locked/Crossed Market Plan
referenced in MIAX Rule 1400), provided the Member meets certain
percentage thresholds in a month as described in the Priority
Customer Rebate Program table. See Fee Schedule, Section
(1)(a)(iii).
    \20\ Under the PRP, MIAX Options credits each Member the per
contract amount resulting from contracts executed from an order
submitted by that Member for the account(s) of a (i) Public Customer
that is not a Priority Customer; (ii) Non-MIAX Market Maker; (iii)
Non-Member Broker-Dealer; or (iv) Firm (for purposes of the
Professional Rebate Program, ``Professional'') which is executed
electronically on the Exchange in all multiply-listed option classes
(excluding, in simple or complex as applicable, mini-options, Non-
Priority Customer-to-Non-Priority Customer Orders, QCC Orders, PRIME
Orders, PRIME AOC Responses, PRIME Contra-side Orders, and
executions related to contracts that are routed to one or more
exchanges in connection with the Options Order Protection and
Locked/Crossed Market Plan referenced in MIAX Rule 1400), provided
the Member achieves certain Professional volume increase percentage
thresholds in the month relative to the fourth quarter of 2015, as
described in the table above [sic]. See Fee Schedule, Section
(1)(a)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to increase the Taker Surcharge is also
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \21\ because it perfects the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system and
protect investors and the public interest by encouraging participants
to provide liquidity on the Strategy Book, which the Exchange believes
is an important competitive tool that directly or indirectly can
provide better prices for investors. The Exchange believes that
assessing the Taker Surcharge only on participants removing liquidity
effectively subsidizes, and thus encourages the posting of liquidity,
which benefits investors and the public in the form of a deeper, more
liquid marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) [sic] and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public Customers that are not Priority Customers, non-MIAX Options
Market Makers, non-Member Broker-Dealers and Firms that use
sophisticated trading systems will be able to remove liquidity from the
Strategy Book, and thus the Exchange believes that assessing the Taker
Surcharge to participants who remove liquidity, and not assessing the
Taker Surcharge to participants with complex orders resting on the
Strategy Book, is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory. Moreover,
the proposed

Taker Surcharge increase is substantially similar to the surcharge
increase on CBOE.\22\ The Exchange believes for these reasons that the
Taker Surcharge for complex orders is equitable, reasonable and not
unfairly discriminatory, and thus consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See supra notes 10 and 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that the proposed increase in the Taker Surcharge for complex
transactions is intended to promote narrower spreads and greater
liquidity at the best prices. The fee-based incentives for market
participants to provide liquidity by submitting complex orders to the
Exchange, and thereby improve the MBBO to ensure participation, should
enable the Exchange to attract order flow and compete with other
exchanges which also provide such incentives to their market
participants for similar transactions.
    The Exchange believes that increased complex order flow will bring
greater volume and liquidity which in turn benefits all market
participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter
spreads. Therefore, any potential effects that the increased Taker
Surcharge for complex transactions may have on intra-market competition
are justifiable due to the reasons stated above.
    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 and to attract order flow. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment because they modify the Exchange's fees in a
manner that encourages market participants to provide liquidity and to
send 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,\23\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \24\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \24\ 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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2017-02 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-MIAX-2017-02. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of 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; 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-MIAX-2017-02, and should be
submitted on or before March 6, 2017.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02838 Filed 2-10-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 79 (Thursday, April 23, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22726-22727]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: CP20-167-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Application for the abandonment of firm transportation
service of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/15/20.
    Accession Number: 20200415-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-790-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Penalty Crediting Report of El Paso Natural Gas
Company, L.L.C. under RP20-790.

    Filed Date: 4/16/20.
    Accession Number: 20200416-5101.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/28/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 17, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-08637 Filed 4-22-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39458-39459]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16301]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0436; FRL-9696-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by West Virginia. This SIP revision provides the
basic program elements specified in Clean Air Act (CAA) section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 lead
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or August 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2012-0436 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0436, Donna Mastro, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Mailcode 3AP30, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2012-0436. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston,
West Virginia 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emlyn V[eacute]lez-Rosa, (215) 814-
2038, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    On October 15, 2008, EPA substantially strengthened the primary and
secondary lead NAAQS (hereafter the ``2008 lead NAAQS''), revising the
level of the primary (health-based) standard from 1.5 micrograms per
cubic meter ([mu]g/m3) to 0.15 [mu]g/m3, measured as total suspended
particles (TSP), not to be exceeded with an averaging time of a rolling
3-month period. EPA also revised the secondary (welfare-based) standard
to be identical to the primary standard, as well as the associated
ambient air monitoring requirements. See 40 CFR 50.16.
    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIP revisions
that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists specific elements that states
must meet or continue to meet in these SIP submissions. Under this
section, the CAA directs all states to develop and maintain an air
quality management infrastructure that includes enforceable emission
limitations, an ambient monitoring program, an enforcement program, air
quality modeling capabilities, and adequate personnel, resources, and
legal authority.
    For the 2008 lead NAAQS, states typically have met many of the
basic program elements required in CAA section 110(a)(2) through
earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous lead NAAQS.
Nevertheless, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(1), states will have to
review and revise, as appropriate, their existing lead NAAQS SIPs to
ensure that the SIPs are adequate to address the 2008 lead NAAQS.
States must provide SIP submissions, or provide a certification that
the SIP addresses the elements in section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M) of
the CAA. To assist states in meeting this statutory requirement, EPA
issued a guidance on October 14, 2011, entitled, ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements Required Under
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a) (2) for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)'' (hereafter the ``2011 Lead
Infrastructure Guidance''), which lists the basic elements that states
must include in their SIPs for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

II. Summary of State Submittal

    On October 26, 2011, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) provided a submittal to satisfy the requirements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the

2008 lead NAAQS. This submittal addressed the following infrastructure
elements, which EPA is proposing to approve: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A),
(B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M), or portions
thereof. A detailed summary of EPA's review and rationale for approving
West Virginia's submittal may be found in the Technical Support
Document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking action, which is available
online at www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0436.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve West Virginia's SIP revision that
provides the basic program elements specified in CAA section 110(a)(2)
necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the 2008 lead NAAQS. This
SIP revision was submitted on October 26, 2011. This action does not
include the sections, or portions thereof, of 110(a)(2)(C) and
110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA which pertain to the nonattainment requirements
of part D, Title I of the CAA, since these two elements are not
required to be submitted by the 3-year submission deadline of CAA
section 110(a)(1), and will be addressed in a separate process.
Additionally, EPA is taking separate action on the portions of CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 2008 lead NAAQS as
they relate to West Virginia's PSD program, as required by part C of
Title I of the CAA. This includes portions of the following
infrastructure elements: CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), (D) and (J). EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: June 21, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-16301 Filed 7-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P