[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 40203]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15925]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Docket No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
West Medway II, LLC..........................  EG21-119-000
BMP Wind LLC.................................  EG21-120-000
Kei Mass Energy Storage I, LLC...............  EG21-121-000
Niyol Wind, LLC..............................  EG21-122-000
Clines Corners Wind Farm LLC.................  EG21-123-000
Duran Mesa LLC...............................  EG21-124-000
Red Cloud Wind LLC...........................  EG21-125-000
Tecolote Wind LLC............................  EG21-126-000
Samson Solar Energy III LLC..................  EG21-127-000
Triple Butte LLC.............................  EG21-128-000
St-Felicien, Societe en commandite...........  EG21-129-000
Irish Creek Wind, LLC........................  EG21-130-000
Heartland Divide Wind II, LLC................  EG21-131-000
Little Blue Wind Project, LLC................  EG21-132-000
Sac County Wind, LLC.........................  EG21-133-000
Minco Wind Energy II, LLC....................  EG21-134-000
SP Garland Solar Storage, LLC................  EG21-135-000
SP Tranquillity Solar Storage, LLC...........  EG21-136-000
BLCP Power Limited...........................  FC21-3-000
Chaiyaphum Wind Farm Company Limited.........  FC21-4-000
EGCO Cogeneration Company Limited............  FC21-5-000
G-Power Source Company Limited...............  FC21-6-000
Gulf Power Generation Company Limited........  FC21-7-000
Gulf Yala Green Company Limited..............  FC21-8-000
Nam Theun 2 Power Company Limited............  FC21-9-000
Natural Energy Development Company Limited...  FC21-10-000
Nong Khae Cogeneration Company Limited.......  FC21-11-000
Paju Energy Services Company Limited.........  FC21-12-000
PT Darajat Geothermal Indonesia..............  FC21-13-000
Roi-Et Green Company Limited.................  FC21-14-000
San Buenaventura Power Limited Company.......  FC21-15-000
Solarco Company Limited......................  FC21-16-000
Star Energy Geothermal Darajat I, Ltd........  FC21-17-000
Star Energy Geothermal Darajat II, Ltd.......  FC21-18-000
Star Energy Geothermal Salak, Ltd............  FC21-19-000
Star Energy Geothermal Salak Pratama, Ltd....  FC21-20-000
Star Energy Geothermal (Wayang Windu) Ltd....  FC21-21-000
Theppana Wind Farm Company Limited...........  FC21-22-000
Xayaburi Power Company Limited...............  FC21-23-000
Convergent Canada Companies..................  FC21-24-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Take notice that during the month of June 2021, the status of the
above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators or Foreign
Utility Companies became effective by operation of the Commission's
regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2020).

    Dated: July 21, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15925 Filed 7-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67431-67433]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27353]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68150; File No. SR-NYSE-2012-56]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Proposing To Make Changes to Certain Fees and Credits Within the New
York Stock Exchange LLC Price List

November 5, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on October 22, 2012, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared 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 proposes to make changes to certain fees and credits
within its Price List, which the Exchange proposes to become operative
on November 1, 2012. The text of the proposed rule change is available
on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to make changes to certain fees and credits
within its Price List, which the Exchange proposes to become operative
on November 1, 2012.
    Currently, for transactions in stocks with a per share stock price
of $1.00 or more, the Exchange charges a transaction fee of $0.00055
per share for all market at-the-close (``MOC'') and limit at-the-close
(``LOC'') orders from any member organizations that execute an average
daily trading volume (``ADV'') of MOC and LOC activity on the Exchange
in that month of at least 14 million shares. Member organizations that
do not execute an ADV of MOC and LOC activity on the Exchange of at
least 14 million shares are charged a transaction fee of $0.00095 per
share. The Exchange proposes to modify the threshold for the $0.00055
transaction fee for MOC and LOC orders from an ADV of at least 14
million shares to an ADV of at least 0.375% of consolidated average
daily volume in NYSE-listed securities during the billing month (``NYSE
CADV'').
    The Exchange believes that modifying the transaction fee threshold
for MOC and LOC orders with a per share stock price of $1.00 or more as
proposed would provide a more flexible method by which member
organizations may qualify for the lower fee for MOC and LOC orders by
changing from a fixed volume to one that will adjust automatically
based on higher or lower NYSE CADV. The Exchange believes that the
proposed change would continue to allocate a lower fee to member
organizations that make significant contributions to market quality by
providing higher volumes of liquidity.
    Currently, the Exchange provides a credit of $0.0018 per share for
transactions in stocks with a per share stock price of $1.00 or more
when adding displayed liquidity to the Exchange if either:
    (i) The member organization has ADV that adds liquidity to the
Exchange during the billing month (``Adding ADV,'' which excludes any
liquidity added by a Designated Market Maker (``DMM'')) that is at
least 1.5% of NYSE CADV, and executes MOC and LOC orders of at least
0.375% of NYSE CADV; or
    (ii) The member organization has Adding ADV that is at least 0.8%
of NYSE CADV, executes MOC and LOC orders of at least 0.12% of NYSE
CADV, and adds liquidity to the Exchange as a Supplemental Liquidity
Provider (``SLP'') for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate
(including shares of both an SLP proprietary trading unit (``SLP-
Prop'') and an SLP market maker (``SLMM'') of the same member
organization) of more than 0.25% of NYSE CADV.
    The Exchange proposes to modify the second method by which member
organizations may qualify for the credit and add a third method by
which member organizations may qualify for the credit when adding
displayed liquidity. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to revise
the second method to qualify for the credit such that a member
organization would qualify for the credit if the member organization
has Adding ADV that is at least 0.8% of NYSE CADV, executes MOC and LOC
orders of at least 0.12% of NYSE CADV, and adds liquidity to the
Exchange as a SLP for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate
(including shares of both an SLP-Prop and an SLMM of the same member
organization) of more than 0.15% of NYSE CADV. Currently, a member
organization would have to provide liquidity to the Exchange as an SLP
for all assigned SLP securities in the aggregate of more than 0.25% of
NYSE CADV, as opposed to the proposed 0.15% of NYSE CADV. The Exchange
believes that reducing the threshold to 0.15% of NYSE CADV would allow
more member organizations to qualify for the higher credit, and
therefore, in turn, attract multiple sources of liquidity to the
Exchange.
    Finally, the Exchange proposes that a member organization would
qualify for the credit of $0.0018 per share if the member organization
has ADV that adds liquidity in customer electronic orders to the
Exchange (``Customer Electronic Adding ADV,'' which would exclude any
liquidity added by a Floor broker,

DMM, or SLP) during the billing month that is at least 0.5% of NYSE
CADV, executes MOC and LOC orders of at least 0.12% of NYSE CADV, and
has Customer Electronic Adding ADV during the billing month that, taken
as a percentage of NYSE CADV, is at least equal to the member
organization's Customer Electronic Adding ADV during September 2012 as
a percentage of consolidated average daily volume in NYSE-listed
securities during September 2012 (``September 2012 NYSE CADV'') plus
15%.\3\ For example, if a member organization's Customer Electronic
Adding ADV during September 2012 was 0.10% of September 2012 NYSE CADV,
then the member organization's Customer Electronic Adding ADV during
the billing month must be at least 0.115% of NYSE CADV in order to
qualify for the proposed credit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For purposes of determining whether a firm that becomes a
member organization after September 2012 qualifies for this proposed
third method by which member organizations may qualify for the
$0.0018 per share credit, the new member organization's September
2012 NYSE CADV would be zero, and therefore, the member organization
would only need to have Customer Electronic Adding ADV of at least
0.5% of NYSE CADV and execute MOC and LOC orders of at least 0.12%
of NYSE CADV to qualify for the credit of $0.0018 per share.
Additionally, the September 2012 NYSE CADV of a firm that becomes a
member organization during September 2012 would be calculated based
on the number of trading days during September 2012, not the number
of trading days during September 2012 during which the firm was a
member organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that adding this third method by which member
organizations may qualify for the $0.0018 per share credit would
encourage additional displayed liquidity on the Exchange. In addition,
the method would provide discounts that are reasonably related to the
value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes
and would encourage multiple sources of liquidity by providing member
organizations without a DMM, SLP, or Floor broker unit an alternative
method to qualify for the credit when adding displayed liquidity.
    The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any
other problem, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problem
that the affected member organizations would have in complying with the
proposed changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Act''),\4\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act,\5\ in particular, because it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities and does not
unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that modifying the transaction fee threshold
for MOC and LOC orders with a per share stock price of $1.00 or more is
reasonable because it provides a more flexible method by which member
organizations may qualify for the lower fee for MOC and LOC orders. In
addition, the proposed change is reasonable because the threshold would
adjust automatically based on higher or lower NYSE CADV. The Exchange
believes that the proposed change to MOC and LOC orders is equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated member
organizations would be subject to the same fee structure, which
automatically adjusts based on prevailing market conditions, and would
continue to allocate a lower fee to member organizations that make
significant contributions to market quality by providing higher volumes
of liquidity.
    The Exchange believes that modifying the second method by which
member organizations may qualify for the credit of $0.0018 per share
for transactions in stocks with a per share stock price of $1.00 or
more when adding displayed liquidity is reasonable because lowering the
threshold for SLP provide volume to 0.15% of NYSE CADV would allow more
member organizations to qualify for the reduced fee, which in turn
would attract multiple sources of liquidity to the Exchange. In
addition, the proposed change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would continue to provide a higher credit to
member organizations that is reasonably related to the value to the
Exchange's market quality associated with higher volumes.
    The Exchange believes the new method by which member organizations
may qualify for the credit for transactions in stocks with a per share
stock price of $1.00 or more when adding displayed liquidity is
reasonable because it would encourage additional displayed liquidity on
the Exchange. The Exchange believes the new method is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it is open to all member organizations
on an equal basis and provides discounts that are reasonably related to
the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher
volumes. In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it would encourage
multiple sources of liquidity by providing member organizations without
a DMM, SLP, or Floor broker unit an alternative method to qualify for
the credit.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \6\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4 \7\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2012-56 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2012-56. 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-NYSE-2012-56 and should be
submitted on or before November 30, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27353 Filed 11-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44883-44884]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19065]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-D-3969]

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Analyses--Format and
Content; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled
``Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Analyses--Format and Content.''
This guidance outlines the recommended format and content for a sponsor
or applicant to submit physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK)
analyses to FDA to support applications including, but not limited to,
investigational new drug applications (INDs), new drug applications
(NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), or abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs). This guidance does not address methodological
considerations and best practices for the conduct of PBPK modeling and
simulation or the appropriateness of PBPK analyses for a particular
drug or a drug product.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on September 4, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2016-D-3969 for ``Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Analyses--
Format and Content.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket
and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,''
publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/

fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-
addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Xinyuan Zhang, Office of Clinical
Pharmacology, Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7971.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry
entitled ``Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Analyses--Format and
Content.'' A PBPK analysis uses models and simulations that combine
physiology, population, and drug characteristics to mechanistically
describe the pharmacokinetic behaviors of a drug or drug product.
Throughout a drug's life cycle, PBPK model predictions can be used to
support decisions on whether, when, and how to conduct certain clinical
pharmacology studies, and to support dosing recommendations in product
labeling. Because of the lack of regulatory guidance, the format and
content of PBPK analysis reports that are submitted to FDA vary
significantly. The goal of this guidance is to standardize the content
and format of these reports to facilitate FDA's efficient assessment,
consistent application, and timely decision making during regulatory
review.
    This guidance outlines the recommended format and content for a
sponsor or applicant to submit PBPK analyses to FDA to support
applications including, but not limited to, INDs, NDAs, BLAs, and
ANDAs. This guidance does not address methodological considerations and
best practices for the conduct of PBPK modeling and simulation or the
appropriateness of PBPK analyses for a particular drug or a drug
product.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic
Analyses--Format and Content.'' It does not establish any rights for
any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an
alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable
statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject to Executive
Order 12866.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collection of information in 21 CFR 314.50(d) has been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0001.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 27, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-19065 Filed 8-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17057]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07265]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-F-0171]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of
Articles of Food in Vending Machines

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Food Labeling; Calorie Labeling of
Articles of Food in Vending Machines'' has been approved by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 5, 2015, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Food Labeling; Calorie
Labeling of Articles of Food in Vending Machines'' to OMB for review
and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB
control number 0910-0782. The approval expires on March 31, 2018. A
copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is
available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: March 25, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-07265 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 92 (Monday, May 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28008-28010]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11224]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69527; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2013-45]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 7.11(a)(6)(C) To Add Inside Limit Orders as Eligible for
Repricing Instructions

May 7, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 23, 2013, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule
7.11(a)(6)(C) to add Inside Limit Orders as eligible for repricing
instructions. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.11
(``Rule 7.11''), which implements the Limit Up--Limit Down Plan,\3\ the
first phase of which became effective on April 8, 2013, to add Inside
Limit Orders as eligible for repricing. Under Rule 7.11, buy or sell
interest that is priced or could be executed above or below the Price
Bands, as that term is used in the Rule, would be canceled, with one
exception. That exception, set out in sub-paragraph (a)(6) of the Rule,
permits an ETP Holder to instruct the Exchange to reprice eligible
limit orders that are priced above or below the Price Bands, rather
than cancel such orders. Eligible limit orders would be repriced to the
Price Bands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Rule 7.11, ``Plan'' means the Plan to Address
Extraordinary Market Volatility Submitted to the Securities and
Exchange Commission Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Exhibit A to Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012), as
it may be amended from time to time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.11(a)(6)(C) to add another
limit order type that is eligible for repricing instructions.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add Inside Limit Orders, which
are defined in Rule 7.31(d),\4\ to the list of orders eligible for
repricing instructions. The Exchange proposes to announce by Trader
Update when the functionality associated with repricing instructions
for Inside Limit Orders will be made available and anticipates that
such instructions will be made available to ETP Holders before the roll
out of the implementation of Phase I of the Plan has been completed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ An Inside Limit Order is a Limit Order, which, if routed
away pursuant to NYSE Arca Equities Rule 7.37(d), will be routed to
the market participant with the best displayed price. Any unfilled
portion of the order will not be routed to the next best price level
until all quotes at the current best bid or offer are exhausted.
Once each current best bid or offer is exhausted, Exchange systems
reevaluate the next best displayed price and route to that single
price point and continue such assessment at each new best displayed
price level until the order is filled or no longer marketable. If
the order is no longer marketable it will be ranked in the NYSE Arca
Book pursuant to Rule 7.36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\5\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5),\6\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
The Exchange believes that adding Inside Limit Orders to the list of
orders eligible for repricing instructions removes impediments to and
perfects the mechanism of a free and open market because it provides
greater choice to ETP Holders of how to instruct the Exchange to handle
their orders under the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the proposed amendment will reduce burdens on competition by giving ETP
Holders greater flexibility to add repricing instructions for
additional limit orders, specifically, Inside Limit Orders.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\10\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the Exchange immediately to provide that Inside Limit
Orders will be treated similar to other limit orders eligible for
repricing instructions under the recently implemented Limit Up--Limit
Down Plan. Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exchange's
request and designates the proposal operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-45 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-45. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2013-45 and should
be submitted on or before June 3, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11224 Filed 5-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 60986-60988]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24406]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Chapter I

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0490; FRL-10001-34]

TSCA Section 21 Petition To Prohibit the Use of Hydrofluoric Acid
at Oil Refineries; Reasons for Agency Response

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; denial.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the availability of EPA's response to
an August 7, 2019 petition it received under section 21 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) from Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER). PEER petitioned EPA to prohibit the use of
hydrofluoric acid in manufacturing processes at oil refineries under
TSCA section 6(a) and require a phase-out of use at such facilities
within two years. After careful consideration, EPA has denied the TSCA
section 21 petition for the reasons discussed in this document.

DATES: EPA's response to this TSCA section 21 petition was signed
November 4, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Robert Courtnage, National
Program Chemicals Division, Mailcode 7404T, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 202-
566-1081, email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons who are using or may use
hydrofluoric acid in manufacturing processes at oil refineries. Since
other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I access information about this petition?

    The docket for this TSCA section 21 petition, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0490, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. TSCA Section 21

A. What is a TSCA section 21 petition?

    Under TSCA section 21 (15 U.S.C. 2620), any person can petition EPA
to initiate a rulemaking proceeding for the issuance, amendment, or
repeal of a rule under TSCA sections 4, 6 or 8, or an order under TSCA
sections 4, 5(e) or 5(f). A TSCA section 21 petition must set forth the
facts that are claimed to establish the necessity for the action
requested. EPA is required to grant or deny the petition within 90 days
of its filing. If EPA grants the petition, the Agency must promptly
commence an appropriate proceeding. If EPA denies the petition, the
Agency must publish its reasons for the denial in the Federal Register.
A petitioner may commence a civil action in a U.S. district court to
compel initiation of the requested rulemaking proceeding within 60 days
of either a denial or, if EPA does not issue a decision, within 60 days
of the expiration of the 90-day period.

B. What criteria apply to a decision on a TSCA section 21 petition?

    Section 21(b)(1) of TSCA requires that the petition ``set forth the
facts which it is claimed establish that it is necessary to issue,
amend, or repeal a rule.'' 15 U.S.C. 2620(b)(1). Thus, TSCA section 21
implicitly incorporates the statutory standards that apply to the
requested actions. In addition, TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B) establishes
standards a court must use to decide whether to order EPA to initiate
rulemaking in the event of a lawsuit filed by the petitioner. 15 U.S.C.
2620(b)(4)(B). TSCA sections 6(b) and 26 contain substantive legal and
scientific requirements for making a risk determination under section
21(b)(4)(B)(ii) in the case of a proceeding for the issuance of a TSCA
section 6(a) rule. Accordingly, EPA has relied on the standards in TSCA
sections 26 and 6 to evaluate this TSCA section 21 petition and issue
its decision to deny it.

III. Summary of the TSCA Section 21 Petition

A. What action was requested?

    On August 7, 2019, PEER petitioned EPA under TSCA section 21 to
promulgate regulations pursuant to TSCA section 6(a), and under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to take the same action pursuant to
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). PEER petitioned EPA to prohibit
the use of hydrofluoric acid in manufacturing processes at oil
refineries and require oil refineries to phase out the use of
hydrofluoric acid within two years. This Federal Register notice
specifically addresses PEER's TSCA section 21 petition, not the
petition under the APA.

B. What support does the petitioner offer?

    PEER requests that EPA promulgate a TSCA section 6(a) rule,
asserting that: (1) Hydrofluoric acid is inherently dangerous; (2) the
potential for industrial accidents presents too great a risk; (3) there
is the potential for terrorist attacks targeting chemical plants,
including refineries; and (4) there are safer alternatives to
hydrofluoric acid for use at oil refineries. In its petition, PEER
provides information from the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health on the hazardous properties of hydrofluoric acid and the
significant hazard posed if released accidentally.
    PEER cites events in Torrance, California, South Korea, and
Philadelphia to support concerns that additives may be ineffective in
reducing cloud formation or addressing the potential for dangerous
concentrations of hydrofluoric acid to persist miles away from the
refinery. In the Torrance case, a valve failure unrelated to
hydrofluoric acid caused an explosion and a projectile landed near
tanks containing hydrofluoric acid; however, no injuries were reported,
and no hydrofluoric acid was released. In the South Korea case, worker
error led to an escape of gaseous hydrofluoric acid. Five worker deaths
resulted, as well as many injuries to first responders. In this case,
however, there was an unawareness of hydrofluoric acid being present
and proper personal protective equipment was not worn, due to a

difference in standards for how hydrofluoric acid is used in South
Korea.
    The most recent incident PEER referenced was a fire at a refinery
in Philadelphia in June 2019. Although 5,000 pounds of hydrofluoric
acid were released due to equipment failure unrelated to hydrofluoric
acid, there were no deaths and only minor injuries (Ref. 1). A second
fire in a Richmond, California, refinery in 2012 is also referenced by
PEER as a near-miss.
    PEER states that a prohibition on use of hydrofluoric acid at
refineries is warranted because there are safer alternatives that can
be readily substituted (Ref. 1). The petition offers minimal
information about these alternatives; it briefly mentions two options:
Solid acid catalyst alkylation, and ionic liquid alkylation, both of
which use non-hazardous chemicals (Ref. 1). However, PEER presents
limited information about these alternatives.

C. Background

    Hydrofluoric acid is a solution of hydrogen fluoride in water and a
precursor to fluorine compounds. In oil refineries, hydrofluoric acid
is used as a catalyst in a process called alkylation. Due to its hazard
properties, hydrofluoric acid is regulated by the federal government
under several authorities, including related to preparation for
emergency response to accidental and other nonroutine releases. The
authorities include the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act,
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the CAA, which are all
under the EPA's jurisdiction. Hydrofluoric acid is also regulated under
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act under the jurisdiction of
the Department of Transportation. As PEER acknowledges, hydrofluoric
acid is regulated under the Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions, 40
CFR part 68 (commonly referred to as the Risk Management Plan (RMP)
rule pursuant to CAA section 112(r), (42 U.S.C. 7412(r)). The RMP rule
requires facilities that have certain extremely hazardous substances,
such as hydrofluoric acid, above a threshold quantity, to develop a
risk management program that identifies the potential effects of a
chemical accident, and steps the facility is taking to prevent an
accident and spells out emergency response procedures should an
accident occur. The RMP rule also requires facilities to report to EPA
a summary of the actions described in an RMP. In addition to the RMP
rule, the General Duty Clause under CAA section 112(r)(1) requires
facilities to identify hazards present from accidental releases of
extremely hazardous substances such as hydrofluoric acid, design and
maintain a safe facility, and minimize the consequences of accidental
releases.
    There are also several Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) health and safety standards that employers must
follow that apply to hydrogen fluoride, including implementing a
process safety management program under 29 CFR 1910.119; determining
the appropriate level of employee respiratory protection under 29 CFR
1910.134; implementing a hazard communication program under 29 CFR
1910.120, implementing a program of engineering controls, work
practices and personal protective equipment to control exposure under
29 CFR 1910.132 and 1910.1000); and developing and implementing an
emergency response plan, including emergency procedures and training of
personnel under 29 CFR 1910.120 and 1910.38.
    The Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), through the Chemical Facility
Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, requires facilities that use
chemicals of interest (COI) such as hydrofluoric acid to report to CISA
when a threshold of the COI is reached. Based on the assessed risk,
CISA determines whether the facility is a high-risk facility and is
then ranked into Tiers 1, 2, 3, and 4, with Tier 1 being the highest
risk. If a facility is tiered, it must submit a Security Vulnerability
Assessment (SVA) and a Site Security Plan (SSP)--or an Alternative
Security Program (ASP)--that meets the risk-based performance standards
(RBPS). More information is available at https://www.dhs.gov/cisa/risk-based-performance-standards-rbps. Among other things the RBPS address
are security issues such as perimeter security, access control,
personnel security, and cybersecurity.

IV. Disposition of TSCA Section 21 Petition

    EPA is denying the petition based on the petition's lack of
sufficient facts establishing that it is necessary for the Agency to
issue a rule under TSCA section 6(a).
    TSCA section 21 requires EPA to respond to a petition within 90
days of filing of the petition. If that petition requests a TSCA
section 6(a) rulemaking and EPA grants that petition, TSCA section 21
requires EPA to promptly commence an appropriate proceeding under TSCA
section 6. To grant a petition for a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking, a
petition would need to provide the facts establishing that the
requested rulemaking is necessary. See, e.g., Trumpeter Swan Soc. v.
EPA, 774 F.3d 1037, 1040 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (explaining that TSCA section
21 requires that a petition ``set forth facts establishing the need for
the requested rule''). Those facts would need to be sufficiently clear
and robust for EPA to be able to conclude, within 90 days of filing the
petition, that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk of injury to
health or the environment and that issuance of a TSCA section 6(a) rule
is the appropriate response to the petition. To make the threshold
finding, EPA would need hazard and exposure data and other information
that enables the Agency to assess risk and conclude whether the risk is
unreasonable. In the absence of that information, EPA would need
additional factual information to make a determination, which would
require a denial and resubmittal by petitioners. Petitioners should
look to and utilize the congressionally mandated, and EPA issued,
``Guidance to Assist Interested Persons in Developing and Submitting
Draft Risk Evaluations Under the Toxic Substances Control Act.'' (EPA
740-R17-001, June 22, 2017) See TSCA section 26(l)(5). This guidance
document sets forth the ``quality of the information submitted and the
process to be followed in developing draft risk evaluations.'' Id.
    The petition would need to include, for example, some analysis of
the methods used to identify the data or information submitted or used,
hazard thresholds recommended or chosen, and exposure estimates and
patterns contemplated or addressed. This factual information is
necessary for EPA to be able to determine whether there is an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, consistent
with the best available science, based on the weight-of-the-scientific-
evidence, and taking into account reasonably available information, as
required by TSCA sections 26(h), (i) and (k), respectively. The
petition would also need to include other factual information necessary
to address whether or why the requested TSCA section 6(a) rule is the
appropriate response to the petition. These are critical threshold
requirements applicable to a finding of unreasonable risk and a
determination that TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking is

necessary. A petition without such information is facially incomplete
because it fails to provide minimum factual information for EPA to make
the threshold findings needed to respond to and act on the petition as
contemplated by TSCA section 21.
    In this case, PEER's petition refers to hazard databases and makes
conclusory statements of toxicity but provides little further
information that would support granting a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking
request. The petition lacks analysis that would be expected in a TSCA
risk evaluation preceding a section 6(a) rulemaking. For example, there
is no discussion of the appropriate hazard threshold, exposure
estimates, assessment of risks, or how the facts presented allow EPA to
comply with its duties under section 26 or other statutory requirements
in making an unreasonable risk determination. Absent such minimal
factual information, EPA cannot make the threshold determinations
necessary to substantively assess and grant a petition for a TSCA
section 6(a) rulemaking. As a result, EPA denies PEER's petition
request as facially incomplete.

V. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Whitehouse, Timothy, Public Employees for Environmental
Responsibility (PEER) to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Re: Ban on Hydrofluoric Acid in Refineries: Petition
for Rulemaking. Received August 7, 2019.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I

    Environmental protection, Hydrofluoric Acid, Oil Refineries,
Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Prohibition on Chemicals.

    Dated: November 4, 2019.
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2019-24406 Filed 11-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76048]
[FR Doc No: C1-2011-29460]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0443; FRL-9492-3]
RIN 2060-AR17

Air Quality Designations for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National Ambient
Air Quality Standards

Correction

    In rule document 2011-29460 appearing on pages 72097-72120 in the
issues of Tuesday, November 22, 2011, make the following corrections:

Sec.  81.337  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 72115, in the first table on the page, the column heading
``Designation for the 2008 NAAQS'' should read ``Designation for the
2008 NAAQS\a\''.

Sec.  81.338  [Corrected]

0
2. On page 72115, in the second table on the page, the column heading
``Designation for the 2008 NAAQS'' should read ``Designation for the
2008 NAAQS\a\''.

Sec.  81.339  [Corrected]

0
3. On page 72115, in the third table on the page, the column heading
``Designation for the 2008 NAAQS'' should read ``Designation for the
2008 NAAQS\a\''.

Sec.  81.340  [Corrected]

0
4. On page 72115, in the last table on the page, the column heading
``Designation for the 2008 NAAQS'' should read ``Designation for the
2008 NAAQS\a\''.

Sec.  81.341  [Corrected]

0
5. On page 72116, in the first table on the page, the column heading
``Designation for the 2008 NAAQS'' should read ``Designation for the
2008 NAAQS\a\''.

Sec.  81.342  [Corrected]

0
6. On page 72116, in the second table on the page, the column heading
``Designation for the 2008 NAAQS'' should read ``Designation for the
2008 NAAQS\a\''.
[FR Doc. C1-2011-29460 Filed 12-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D