			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 24, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-21165

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC. (SPIRIT) filed 5/3/05 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between: (1) the terminal point Orlando, Florida, and the terminal point
Cancun, Mexico; and (2) the terminal point Tampa, Florida and the
terminal point Cancun, Mexico.

Applicant rep: Anita M. Mosner<PHONE_NUMBER>   DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted Tampa-Cancun exemption authority (subject to conditions, see
below)

XX  Deferred as to the Orlando-Cancun request (see remarks below)

The above action was effective when taken: June 24, 2005, through June
24, 2007.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

XX Holder’s certificates of public convenience and necessity

   	XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The U.S.-Mexico exemption authority granted is subject to
the dormancy notice requirements set forth in condition 7 of Appendix A
of Order 88-10-2.  Consistent with our policy, the dormancy notice
period will begin on November 10, 2005, Spirit’s proposed start-up
date for the above-mentioned service.

Remarks:  We will handle the carrier’s request for exemption authority
to serve the Orlando-Cancun market separately.  Under the U.S.-Mexico
aviation agreement, two U.S. airlines may be designated to provide
direct carrier (own-aircraft) service in the Orlando-Cancun market.
Currently, no U.S. carrier is designated to provide such services.
Thus, two designations are available on this route.  However, four
applications have been filed for the Orlando-Cancun market (Spirit’s
application here, AirTran Airways’ application in Docket
OST-2005-21134, Boston-Maine Airways Corp.’s application in Docket
OST-2003-14985, and Delta Air Lines’ application in Docket
OST-2005-21284).  Therefore, we are deferring action on Spirit’s
request for authority to serve the Orlando-Cancun market and will
address it in the context of our consideration of these other
applications.

________________________________________________________________________
______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or deferred, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

										  05/2004

 Competing applications were filed with respect to the Orlando-Cancun
portion of Spirit’s application (see remarks section).

 In its application, Spirit stated that it intended to introduce its
Tampa-Cancun service on or before December 10, 2005.  In its answer to
the application of AirTran Airways, Inc., in Docket OST-2005-21134,
Spirit states that it has changed its service plans and will offer daily
service at Tampa, commencing on or about November 10, 2005.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 93 (Wednesday, May 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 28656]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10183]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4507-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2020-0001]

Ohio; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Ohio (FEMA-4507-DR), dated March 31, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 30, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Ohio is hereby amended to include Individual
Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program for those areas
determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a
major disaster by the President in his declaration of March 31, 2020.

    Individual Assistance limited to the Crisis Counseling Program
for all areas in the State of Ohio (already designated for emergency
protective measures [Category B] not authorized under other Federal
statutes, including direct Federal assistance).
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-10183 Filed 5-12-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38901-38903]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13853]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7057; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-017-AD;
Amendment 39-18557; AD 2016-12-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GROB Aircraft AG Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for GROB
Aircraft AG Model G115EG airplanes. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as cracks in the bonded joint of the rear horizontal
stabilizer frame. We are issuing this AD to require actions to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective July 20, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of July 20,
2016.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact GROB
Aircraft AG, Product Support, Lettenbachstrasse 9, D-86874
Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268-998-105; fax:
+ 49 (0) 8268-998-200; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: grob-aircraft.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-7057.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7057; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD No.: 2016-0091, dated May 16, 2016 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Cracks were found in the bonded joint of the rear horizontal
stabiliser frame of G 115E aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, may lead to crack
propagation into primary structural elements, with detrimental
effect on the structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, GROB issued Service
Bulletin (SB) MSB1078-200 (hereafter referred to as ``the SB'' in
this AD) to provide instructions for inspections and corrective
action.
    For the reason described above, this AD requires repetitive
inspections of the rear horizontal stabilizer frame and modification
of the affected structure.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7057.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    GROB Aircraft AG has issued Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-200, dated
February 25, 2016. The service information describes procedures for
repetitive inspections of the rear horizontal stabilizer frame for
cracks and procedures for repair if necessary. This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by the State of Design Authority and
determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or
develop on other products of the same type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there
are no airplanes currently on the U.S. registry and thus, does not have
any impact upon the public. Therefore, we find that notice and
opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-7057; Directorate
Identifier 2016-CE-017-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 0 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S.
operators to be $0, or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 15 work-hours and require parts costing $60, for a cost of
$1,335 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2016-12-08 GROB Aircraft AG: Amendment 39-18557; Docket No. FAA-
2016-7057; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-017-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective July 20,
2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Grob Aircraft AG Models G115EG airplanes,
serial numbers up to and including 82323/E, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 53: Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as cracks in the
bonded joint of the rear horizontal stabilizer frame. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct cracks in the bonded joint of the rear
horizontal stabilizer frame, which if not corrected could propagate
into the primary structural elements of the airplane and affect its
structural integrity.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(6) of this AD.
    (1) Within the next 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after July
20, 2016 (the effective

date of this AD), and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 50 hours, inspect the rear horizontal stabilizer frame
following the Accomplishment Instructions in section 1.8, Part A, of
GROB Aircraft AG Service Bulletin (SB) No. MSB1078-200, dated
February 25, 2016.
    (2) If any crack within the green area as defined in Figure 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions in section 1.8, Part A, of GROB
Aircraft AG Service Bulletin (SB) No. MSB1078-200, dated February
25, 2016, is found during any inspection required in paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, install a temporary
placard stating ``NO AEROBATICS, NO SPINS AND NO SIDE SLIPS
ALLOWED'' in full view of the pilot(s) and place a copy of this AD
in the airplane flight manual (AFM); and after each day of flight
operations, do a crack propagation inspection following the
Accomplishment Instructions in Section 1.8, Part B, of GROB Aircraft
AG SB No. MSB1078-200, dated February 25, 2016.
    (3) If any crack within the red area as defined in Figure 2 of
the Accomplishment Instructions in section 1.8, Part A, of GROB
Aircraft AG Service Bulletin (SB) No. MSB1078-200, dated February
25, 2016, is found during any inspection required by this AD, before
further flight, repair the affected area following the
Accomplishment Instructions in Section 1.8, Part C, of GROB Aircraft
AG SB No. MSB1078-200, dated February 25, 2016.
    (4) Within the next 19 months after July 20, 2016 (the effective
date of this AD), unless already done as required by paragraph
(f)(3) of this AD, modify the airplane following the Accomplishment
Instructions in Section 1.8, Part C, of GROB Aircraft AG SB No.
MSB1078-200, dated February 25, 2016.
    (5) After modification of the airplane as required by paragraph
(f)(3) or (4) of this AD, remove the placard installed as required
in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD and remove the copy of this AD from
the applicable AFM.
    (6) Modification of an airplane as required in paragraph (f)(3)
or (4) of this AD, as applicable, constitutes terminating action for
the repetitive inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) and (2) of
this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2016-0091, dated May 16, 2016, for related. You may examine the MCAI
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7057.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) GROB Aircraft AG Service Bulletin No. MSB1078-200, dated
February 25, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For GROB Aircraft AG service information identified in this
AD, contact GROB Aircraft AG, Product Support, Lettenbachstrasse 9,
D-86874 Tussenhausen-Mattsies, Germany, telephone: + 49 (0) 8268-
998-105; fax: + 49 (0) 8268-998-200; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: grob-aircraft.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2016-7057.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 6, 2016.
Robert Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-13853 Filed 6-14-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 42291]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17874]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0043; FRL-9982-49-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Polymeric Coating of Supporting
Substrates Facilities (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NSPS for Polymeric Coating of
Supporting Substrates Facilities (EPA ICR No. 1284.11, OMB Control No.
2060-0181), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
August 31, 2018. Public comments were previously requested, via the
Federal Register, on June 29, 2017 during a 60-day comment period. This
notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 20,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0043, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to [email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Polymeric
Coating of Supporting Substrates Facilities (40 CFR part 60, subpart
VVV) apply to each existing and new coating operation and any on-site
coating mix preparation equipment used to prepare coatings for the
polymeric coating of supporting substrates. New facilities include
those that commenced construction, modification, or reconstruction
after the date of proposal. In general, all NSPS standards require
initial notifications, performance tests, and periodic reports by the
owners/operators of the affected facilities. They are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These
notifications, reports, and records are essential in determining
compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart VVV.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Polymeric coating facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60,
subpart VVV).
    Estimated number of respondents: 62 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 14,200 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,190,000 (per year), which includes
$700,000 in annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance
costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is a small adjustment increase in
the total estimated burden and capital and O&M costs as currently
identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This increase is
not due to any program changes. The change in the burden and cost
estimates occurred due to an increase in the respondent universe.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2018-17874 Filed 8-20-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


     Review Report for 1,3-Propanediol (CASRN 504-63-2) Partial Exemption

                                   May 2014

Coalition of Corn Refiners Association ("CRA"), the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA), and the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils (ISEO)
                   Docket Identifier:  EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0221

Note:  Two additional documents contain information for bentonite, acid-leached (CASRN 70131-50-9) and oils, palm kernel (CASRN 8023-79-8) which are addressed in separate supporting review reports.

Summary of Decision:  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter "EPA" or the "Agency") has determined that there is a low current interest in the processing and use information collected under the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule (see 40 CFR Part 711) for 1,3-propanediol (CASRN 504-63-2).  This determination is based on the totality of information on the chemical substance, including an evaluation of the considerations listed in 40 CFR 7l1.6(b)(2)(ii): 1) Consideration A: Current CDR information suggests that at least one site would have a production volume sufficient to trigger the need to report processing and use information under the 2016 CDR (25,000 pound threshold); 2) Consideration B: While it had not made its own determination, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accepts the use of 1,3-propanediol (Generally Recognized As Safe GRAS Notice Inventory No. 302) to be used in place of 1,2-propanediol (as specified in 21 CFR 184.1666(c)) (GRAS listing for 1,2-propanediol) and EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) exempts it from requiring a tolerance when used as an inert ingredient in food use pesticides. Concerning environmental fate, EPA determined from submitted data that 1,3-propanediol is readily biodegradable and will not persistent in the environment, and, EPA found data indicating that 1,3-propanediol has a low potential for bioconcentration and bioaccumulation; 3) Consideration C: EPA is not aware of any currently existing, unmet information needs for CDR processing and use information for this chemical substance; 4) Consideration D: The availability of complementary risk screening information was not sufficiently characterized in the petition; however, for 1,3-propanediol, EPA recognized the assessment supporting OPP's recent tolerance exemption as providing complementary risk screening information; 5) Consideration E: Other recent processing and use information is available in the European Chemical Agency's (ECHA's) database, and although it is for use of products in Europe and not the United States, it provides an indication of uses that may occur in the United States; and 6) Consideration F: EPA is unaware of any specific actions that have already been taken by other agencies or authorities to manage risks relating to this substance.

A direct final rule to add 1,3-propanediol to the list of chemicals substances in 40 CFR 711.6(2)(b)(iv) will be published in the Federal Register.  If the level of interest in the CDR processing and use information for this chemical substance were to change after final listing, EPA may reevaluate the listing decision and pursue amendment of the listing as appropriate.

Persons submitting information in accordance with the CDR rule can still voluntarily report processing and use information even if a chemical substance is partially exempt, so that their chemicals substances may be considered for safer substitute analyses.

Background:  EPA received a petition from Keller and Heckman on behalf of a coalition of the Corn Refiners Association (CRA), the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA), and the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils (ISEO) (hereinafter the "petitioner") requesting that 1,3-propanediol (CASRN 504-63-2) be added to the 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(iv) list of specific chemical substances that are exempt from the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 711.15(b)(4) (i.e., exempt from requirements to report industrial processing and use and commercial/consumer use information).  The chemical substances already included on this partial exemption list are substances for which EPA has previously determined that there is a low current interest in the CDR processing and use information.  However, as stated in the preamble to the Inventory Update Reporting Amendments (IURA) rule promulgated on January 7, 2003, "the need for processing and use information ...changes over time.  The inclusion of a chemical substance under this partial exemption is not based on the potential risks of a chemical.  This partial exemption is solely intended to provide a tool to assist the Agency in better managing the collection of processing and use information" and is also "based on the Agency's current need for collecting IURA processing and use information."  Additionally the preamble states, "[i]n determining whether there is low current interest in IUR processing and use information related to a specific chemical substance, EPA will look to the specific circumstances surrounding the chemical in question and may use one or more of the considerations identified below, and/or considerations not identified below, to make an informed decision."  The considerations used by EPA in reviewing this petition and an analysis of how those considerations relate to 1,3-propanediol are set forth below.

Discussion:  EPA considered information submitted with the petition, as well as other information including, but not limited to: whether the petition chemical substance is listed on the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, Section 313 list of Toxic Chemicals and thus is reportable to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI); 2012 CDR submissions for this chemical substance;  evaluations available through EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS); evaluations by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD)'s High Production Volume ("HPV") Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) program, or the EPA's HPV Challenge Program; and other regulatory programs administered by EPA or other agencies.

The petitioner provided information concerning 1,3-propanediol from a variety of sources and linked the information to specific considerations cited in 40 CFR 711.6(b)(2)(ii).

Consideration A:  Whether the chemical substance qualifies or has qualified in past IUR collections for the reporting of the information described in §711.15(b)(4).

The petitioner provided information to show that 1,3-propanediol was reported in the 2006 IUR.  EPA reviewed the 2012 CDR data for 1,3-propanediol and found that in 2011, five companies reported an aggregate national production volume of 69,715,403 pounds.

EPA has concluded that at least one manufacturing site would likely have a production volume sufficient to trigger the need to report processing and use information under the 2016 CDR (25,000 lb threshold). Thus, EPA concludes that the other considerations are ripe for evaluation.

Consideration B:  The substance's chemical and physical properties or potential for persistence, bioaccumulation, health effects, or environmental effects (considered independently or together).

The petitioner submitted data summaries from the ECHA's dissemination database for substances registered under Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation for 1,3-propanediol; however, these summaries may be used to give an indication of the hazards but are inadequate when used alone for purposes of evaluating hazards.    Notwithstanding the inadequate data summaries, EPA considered other sources of information to inform its decisions on human health and environmental toxicity. In response to a notice submitted by DuPont Tate & Lyle Bioproducts, the FDA indicated that while it had not made its own determination on the GRAS status of 1,3-propanediol, it had no questions about DuPont Tate & Lyle Bioproducts' conclusion that  1,3-propanediol is GRAS under the intended conditions of use. GRAS Notice Inventory GRN No. 302 indicates that 1,3-propanediol is intended to be used in place of 1,2-propanediol as specified in 21 CFR 184.666(c) at levels not to exceed good manufacturing practices.

On June 12, 2013 (78 FR 35143), EPA's OPP published an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for 1,3-propanediol.  DuPont Tate & Lyle Bioproducts submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal, Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food), only  if EPA determines that the tolerance is "safe."  Under FFDCA, "safe" is defined to mean that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all exposures for which there is reliable information. In concluding that the tolerance is safe, EPA conducts a human health risk assessment and ecological effects assessment and makes a determination of safety for the pesticide chemical residue. EPA conducted such a determination prior to publishing the regulation at 40 CFR 180.940, which establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,3-propanediol when used as an inert ingredient solvent, co-solvent, diluent, or freeze-point depressant in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and to raw agricultural crops after harvest and in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food processing equipment and utensils.

Human Health Effects.  The acute oral toxicity of 1,3-propanediol in rats is moderate.  Signs of toxicity included ataxia within hours of exposure and frequent unconsciousness which preceded death. The altered lethal concentration (ALC)50 of 1,3-propanediol via inhalation is moderate in rats after one hour of exposure and the dermal toxicity is low in rabbits. Sufficient data were not submitted to determine the validity of the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) for repeated-dose (systemic), reproductive, developmental and genetic toxicity endpoints.  The substance did not induce gene mutations in mammalian cells in vitro, but induced cytotoxicity at the highest concentration tested without metabolic activation.  The test substance is irritating to the skin and eye of rabbits.   Based on information provided in the petition and EPA's recent assessment in support of a tolerance exemption, taken together, EPA has determined that 1,3-propanediol is of low hazard to human health.

Environmental Effects.  For ecological toxicity, three ECHA test summaries for 1,3-propanediol were reviewed.  In a static acute fish test with no test guideline information, there was no mortality or sublethal effects observed at any test concentration and the 96-hour lethal concentration (LC)50, based on mean measured concentrations, was > 9,720 milligrams per liter (mg/L). In a static acute water flea test with no test guideline information or measured concentrations, the 48-hour effective concentration (EC)50 was 7,417 mg/L (nominal). Finally, in a green algae test following OECD test guideline 201, the algal biomass effective growth inhibition concentration (EbC)50 was 1,600 mg/L and the algal effective growth rate inhibition concentration (ErC)50 was > 10,000 mg/L.  Based on information provided in the petition, which is supported by EPA's recent assessment in support of a tolerance exemption, EPA has determined that 1,3-propanediol is of low hazard to the environment.

Environmental Fate.  The results of a ready biodegradability study showed 71 % biodegradation in 28 days with 58.5 % biodegradation occurring in the first 7 days.  Therefore, the substance is classified as readily biodegradable and not expected to persist in the aquatic or soil environment. EPA estimated an atmospheric half life of 1.1 days for 1,3-propanediol using Estimation Programs Interface for Windows (EPIWIN) (v 3.11) Atmospheric Oxidation Rates for Windows (AOPWIN) Submodel (v 1.91) 2006. Therefore, the substance is not expected to persist in the atmosphere. No measured bioconcentration or bioaccumulation data were submitted by the petitioner, but EPA found, in data submitted under the U.S. chemical industry's Extended HPV (EHPV) program, measured octanol/water partition coefficients ranging from -1.3 to -1.4 suggest a low potential for bioconcentration and bioaccumulation.
EPA believes FDA's acceptance of the GRAS designation and EPA's tolerance exemption provide sufficient evidence to address human health and environmental toxicity concerns.  EPA accepts the submitted data showing that 1,3-propanediol is readily biodegradable and will not persist in the environment, and the EHPV data indicating that 1,3-propanediol has a low potential for bioconcentration and bioaccumulation as sufficient evidence to address environmental fate concerns.  Taken together, this information is sufficient to weigh in favor of partially exempting 1,3-propanediol from CDR reporting based on human health and environmental concerns covered under Consideration B.

Consideration C:  The information needs of EPA, other federal agencies, tribes, states, and local governments, as well as members of the public.

The petitioner stated that 1,3-propanediol has not been the subject of or considered for information collection requirements by EPA under TSCA (other than the TSCA IUR), the Interagency Testing Committee (ITC) or the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  1,3-Propanediol has not been nor is it the subject of any proposed or final regulation by the EPA.  The petitioner is not aware of any unmet information needs of the EPA, other federal agencies, tribes, states, local governments or members of the public in light of FDA regulatory clearances currently available for 1,3-propanediol, which maintain that its use in certain food applications is safe; and the extensive data on 1,3-propanediol published on the ECHA website.

Neither is EPA aware of any currently existing, unmet information needs respecting the processing and use of 1,3 propanediol.  EPA notes that recent processing and use information for 1,3-propanediol is available to government agencies and the public on the ECHA website. Although the uses in Europe may not be exactly the same as the uses in the United States, EPA believes they can provide an indication of potential uses on which to base further analysis, should the chemical substance be of interest.

With respect to future information needs, EPA recognizes that there are now two processes for the conversion of ethylene oxide into 1,3-propanediol, one of which is newly developed and uses bio-based materials. Because of the substantial change in the manufacturing process of this chemical, EPA expects that companies are exploring new markets.  This may eventually affect the currency of existing information sources respecting processing and use of the substance (e.g., 1,3-propanediol manufactured using the bio-based materials might be used in new products). It is also possible that the information needs of agencies and the public may evolve as the market expands.

In light of the recent change in manufacturing process, the relevance of Consideration C to the rulemaking process was mixed.  However, when considered in combination with the other substance-specific factors that weigh in favor of granting a partial reporting exemption (e.g., the evidence that the potential human health effects and/or environmental effects would be low) EPA did not regard the recent change in manufacturing process as sufficiently weighty to alter the overall weight of evidence in favor of establishing a partial reporting exemption.

Consideration D:  The availability of other complementary risk screening information.

The petition included a table which provides the status of the petitioned substances on the European Commission Annex II list of low risk substances, exemption determinations by the European Union for the REACH program, status under the voluntary EPA HPV Challenge Program and safety determinations for low toxicity pesticide inerts.  No discussion was provided linking the status to the availability of recent risk screening information.  EPA notes that the fact that the petitioned substance was not present on most of these lists provided no evidence of the availability of risk screening information nor were explanations given of the significance of the chemicals not being listed on the two European lists.  The lack of inclusion of 1,3-propanediol in the HPV Challenge Program means that no screening information data would be available from that program for the chemical.

However, EPA used data on 1,3-propanediol submitted to EPA under the EHPV program to supplement information provided in the petition under Consideration B.  Also, EPA published an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 1,3-propanediol when it is used as an inert ingredient in pesticides used in food (78 FR 35143, June 12, 2013).  While this exemption only applies to the substance when it is used as an inert ingredient in pesticides used in food, EPA prepared a Human Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to support the exemption which was considered in this analysis.

EPA determined that, although not included in the petition, the recent risk assessment supporting the Agency's tolerance exemption for 1,3-propanediol and the data submitted under the EHPV Program serve as complementary risk screening information for 1,3-propanediol.

Overall, EPA concluded that the availability of information relevant to Consideration D weighs in favor of partially exempting 1,3-propanediol from CDR reporting.

Consideration E:  The availability of comparable processing and use information

While the petitioner indicated that 1,3-propanediol is predominantly used in food (which is not a use subject to TSCA), the information provided from the ECHA database indicated a broader range of uses.  The petitioner asserted that TSCA-regulated exposures are comparable to, or less significant than, the food-use exposures associated with these substances which have already been shown to be "safe."  Citing the ECHA database, the petitioner indicated that 1,3-propanediol is mainly used as a monomer for the production of polytrimetnyleneterephthalate (PTT).  It also listed the variety of industrial preparations in which 1,3-propanediol can be formulated.

Although the uses in the ECHA database are for the European Union, comparison with data from the non-confidential 2012 CDR database indicates that similar uses were reported for industrial, commercial and consumer activities in the United States.  The following industrial sectors were reported to the 2012 CDR for 1,3-propanediol uses:  basic organic chemical manufacturing; plastics material and resin manufacturing; pharmaceutical and medicine manufacturing; other chemical product and preparation manufacturing; soap, cleaning compound, and toilet preparation manufacturing; and paint and coating manufacturing. The following commercial and consumer uses were reported to the 2012 CDR:  anti-freeze and de-icing products; personal care products; ink toner, and colorant products; floor coverings; laundry and dish washing products, building/construction materials; and apparel and footwear care products.

Overall, the relevance of Consideration E to the rulemaking was mixed.  EPA agrees that other recent processing and use information, available from ECHA, is sufficiently comparable to CDR processing and use information to favor granting a partial reporting exemption for this chemical substance. While the ECHA information may not be completely representative of use in the United States, EPA concluded in this case (in view of all relevant considerations) that the ECHA information is a reasonable surrogate indicator of possible United States processing and use.  EPA also recognizes that the ECHA database does not specify the amounts of 1,3-propanediol to each use.  But when considered in combination with the other substance-specific factors that weigh in favor of granting a partial reporting exemption (e.g., the evidence that the potential human health effects and/or environmental effects would be low), EPA does not regard the lack of use-by-use volume information as sufficiently weighty to alter its overall decision to establish a partial reporting exemption for the chemical substance.

Consideration F:  Whether the potential risks for the chemical substance are adequately managed by EPA or another agency or authority.

The petitioner claims that 1,3-propanediol is comprehensively regulated by other state and federal agencies, in particular by the FDA. The petitioner claims that 1,3-propanediol has a long history of safe use in adhesives, anti-freezing agents, toners, and waxes, as well as in cosmetics, personal care products, and fragrances. The petitioner generally indicated that the manufacturing and use of 1,3-propanediol primarily falls within the jurisdiction and authority of the FDA.  The petitioner also stated that EPA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulate the manufacture and use of 1,3-propanediol.

Overall, although the petition included the general claim that this substance is already "controlled adequately under other regulatory regimes," it did not identify how any particular agency or authority was managing any particular risk relating to this substance, nor how such risk management actions should bear on EPA's level of current interest in processing and use information.

EPA is unaware of any specific actions that have already been taken by other agencies or authorities to manage risks relating to this substance.  However, given the evidence that the potential human health effects and/or environmental effects would be low, EPA does not therefore assume that this substance would likely be the subject of a risk management action in the future.  Thus, in this case, EPA believes this consideration weighs neither in favor of nor against adding the substance to the CDR partial exemption list.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 221 (Tuesday, November 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71862-71863]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29229]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76423; File No. SR-EDGX-2015-55]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees

November 10, 2015.
    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 November 2, 2015, EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGX'') 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
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c) (``Fee Schedule'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer, or any person associated with a registered broker or dealer,
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange [sic]. A Member
will have the status of a ``member'' of the Exchange as that term is
defined in Section 3(a)(3) of the Act.'' See Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 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 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 increase the fee for orders yielding fee
code D, which results from an order routed to the New York Stock
Exchange (``NYSE'') or routed using the RDOT routing strategy. In
securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange currently assesses a
fee of $0.0027 per share for Members' orders that yield fee code D. The
Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to increase this fee to
$0.00275 per share. The proposed change would enable the Exchange to
pass through the rate that BATS Trading, Inc. (``BATS Trading''), the
Exchange's affiliated routing broker-dealer, is charged for routing
orders to NYSE when it does not qualify for a volume tiered reduced
fee. The proposed change is in response to NYSE's November 2015 fee
change where NYSE increased the fee to remove liquidity via routable
order types it charges its customers, from a fee of $0.0027 per share
to a fee of $0.00275 per share.\6\ When BATS Trading routes to NYSE, it
will now be charged a standard rate of $0.00275 per share. BATS Trading
will pass through this rate to the Exchange and the Exchange, in turn,
will pass through of a rate of $0.00275 per share to its Members. The
proposed increase to the fee under fee code D would enable the Exchange
to equitably allocate its costs among all Members utilizing fee code D.
The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its Fee Schedule
immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NYSE Trader Update, Fee Changes Effective November 2,
dated October 30, 2015, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Client_Notice_Fee_Change_11_2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the change proposed above, the Exchange proposes to
change certain references on the Fee Schedule in connection with the
launch of the options exchange operated by the Exchange. First, the
Exchange propose [sic] to modify references in the Unicast Access
section under BATS Connect fees to refer to ``BZX Options'' instead of
``BATS Options''. Second, the Exchange proposes to add reference to

EDGX Options in the list of Exchange affiliates to which such fees do
not apply.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\8\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes that its proposal to increase the fee
for Members' orders that yield fee code D from $0.0027 per share to
$0.00275 per share represents an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees, and other charges among Members and other persons using its
facilities because the Exchange does not levy additional fees or offer
additional rebates for orders that it routes to NYSE through BATS
Trading. As of November 1, 2015 [sic], NYSE amended its fee to remove
liquidity via routable order types it charges its customers, from a fee
of $0.0027 per share to a fee of $0.00275 per share.\9\ Therefore, the
Exchange believes that its proposal to pass through a fee of $0.00275
per share for orders that yield fee code D is equitable and reasonable
because it accounts for the pricing changes on NYSE. In addition, the
proposal allows the Exchange to continue to charge its Members a pass-
through rate for orders that are routed to NYSE. Furthermore, the
Exchange notes that routing through BATS Trading is voluntary. Lastly,
the Exchange also believes that the proposed amendment is non-
discriminatory because it applies uniformly to all Members. The
Exchange also believes that the changes to add EDGX Options to the list
of affiliates under Unicast Access and the re-naming of BATS Options as
BZX Options is consistent with the Act. Such changes reflect and are in
connection with the launch of EDGX Options but do not result in any
material change to the Exchange's Fee Schedule or impose any new or
different fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \9\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    These proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. The Exchange does not believe that any of these changes
represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the
Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors.
Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the
ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive
standing in the financial markets. The Exchange believes that its
proposal to pass through a fee of $0.00275 per share for Members'
orders that yield fee code D would increase intermarket competition
because it offers customers an alternative means to route to NYSE. The
Exchange believes that its proposal would not burden intramarket
competition because the proposed rate would apply uniformly to all
Members.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-EDGX-2015-55 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGX-2015-55. 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 will also 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-EDGX-2015-55 and should be
submitted on or before December 8, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-29229 Filed 11-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 71 (Thursday, April 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22037-22039]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8779]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66755; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-42]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Routing Fees

April 6, 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 March 28, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or ``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 amend certain Customer Routing Fees to
recoup costs incurred by the Exchange in routing to away markets and
also create a new category of Routing Fees entitled ``Firm/Broker-
Dealer/Market Maker'' fees.
    While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated the proposed
amendment to the ISE Select Symbols Customer Routing Fee to be
operative on April 2, 2012. In addition, the Exchange has designated
the new category ``Firm/Broker-Dealer/Market Maker'' to be operative on
the same date that SR-Phlx-2012-41 becomes operative.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXfilings, 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 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 purpose of this filing is to recoup costs that the Exchange
incurs for routing and executing certain Customer orders in equity and
index options to the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'')
and also to recoup costs related to a new category of Routing Fees
entitled ``Firm/Broker-Dealer/Market Maker'' fees. The Exchange's
Pricing Schedule at Section V, currently includes the following Routing
Fees for

routing Customer and Professional orders to away markets:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Exchange                     Customer      Professional
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NYSE AMEX...............................           $0.11           $0.31
BATS....................................            0.55            0.55
BOX.....................................            0.11            0.11
CBOE....................................            0.11            0.31
CBOE orders greater than 99 contracts in            0.29            0.31
 RUT, RMN, NDX, MNX, ETFs, ETNs and
 HOLDRs.................................
C2......................................            0.55            0.56
ISE.....................................            0.11            0.29
ISE Select Symbols*.....................            0.23            0.39
NYSE ARCA (Penny Pilot).................            0.55            0.55
NYSE ARCA (Standard)....................            0.11            0.11
NOM.....................................            0.54            0.54
NOM (NDX and MNX).......................            0.56            0.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These fees are applicable to orders routed to ISE that are subject to
  Rebates and Fees for Adding and Removing Liquidity in Select Symbols.
  See ISE's Schedule of Fees for the complete list of symbols that are
  subject to these fees.

    The Exchange is proposing to amend the ``ISE Select Symbols'' \3\
Customer Routing Fee from $0.23 per contract to $0.31 per contract. ISE
recently amended its ``taker'' fee for regular, or non-complex,
Priority Customer orders in the Select Symbols, regardless of size,
from $0.15 per contract to $0.20 per contract.\4\ In addition to the
ISE taker fee, the Exchange also incurs other routing costs which it
seeks to recoup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ISE's Schedule of Fees for the complete list of symbols
that are subject to these fees.
    \4\ See ISE's Schedule of Fees. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 66597 (March 14, 2012), 77 FR 16295 (March 20, 2012)
(SR-ISE-2012-17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2009, the Exchange adopted Rule 1080(m)(iii)(A) to establish
Nasdaq Options Services LLC (``NOS''), a member of the Exchange, as the
Exchange's exclusive order router.\5\ NOS is utilized by the Exchange's
fully automated options trading system, PHLX XL[supreg],\6\ solely to
route orders in options listed and open for trading on the PHLX XL
system to destination markets. Each time NOS routes to away markets NOS
is charged a $0.06 clearing fee and, in the case of certain exchanges,
a transaction fee is also charged in certain symbols, which fees are
passed through to the Exchange. The Exchange currently recoups clearing
and transaction charges incurred by the Exchange as well as certain
other costs incurred by the Exchange when routing to away markets, such
as administrative and technical costs associated with operating NOS,
membership fees at away markets, and technical costs associated with
routing.\7\ While changes to the Pricing Schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these
changes to be operative on April 2, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59995 (May 28,
2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009) (SR-Phlx-2009-32).
    \6\ See SR-Phlx-2012-41. This proposal refers to ``PHLX XL'' as
the Exchange's automated options trading system. In May 2009 the
Exchange enhanced the system and adopted corresponding rules
referring to the system as ``Phlx XL II.'' See Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 59995 (May 28, 2009), 74 FR 26750 (June 3, 2009)
(SR-Phlx-2009-32). The Exchange intends to submit a separate
technical proposed rule change that would change all references to
the system from ``Phlx XL II'' to ``PHLX XL'' for branding purposes.
    \7\ The Exchange is therefore increasing the ISE Select Symbols
Customer Routing Fee to $0.31 per contract to account for the $0.20
ISE taker fee, the $0.06 clearing cost and another $0.05 per
contract associated with administrative and technical costs
associated with operating NOS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to create a new category of Routing
Fees entitled ``Firm/Broker-Dealer/Market Maker'' fees. The Exchange
recently filed a rule change to expand the routing capabilities of
certain options orders that are eligible for electronic routing to
other market centers by PHLX XL. Currently, Rule 1080(m) states that
PHLX XL will route only Customer \8\ FIND \9\ and SRCH \10\ orders to
away markets. The rule change seeks to add non-customer FIND orders as
a new category of orders that are eligible for routing.\11\ This
amendment to Exchange Rule 1080(m) would permit Firm, Broker-Dealer and
Market Maker orders to be eligible for routing to other market centers
when the Exchange cannot execute such orders at the National Best Bid
or Offer (``NBBO'').\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ SR-Phlx-2012-41 defined the term ``customer'' as a person or
entity that is neither a broker-dealer nor a direct or indirect
affiliate of a broker-dealer. The rule filing specifically states
that the term ``customer'' includes a ``professional'' as defined in
Exchange Rule 1000(b)(14).
    \9\ A FIND order is currently defined as an order that is
routable upon receipt. A FIND order received during open trading
that is not marketable against the PHLX best Bid/Offer ``PBBO'' or
the Away Best Bid/Offer (``ABBO'') will be entered into the limit
order book at its limit price. The FIND order will not be eligible
for routing until the next time the option series is subject to a
new Opening Process. See Exchange Rule 1080(m)(iv)(B).
    \10\ A SRCH order is an order that is routable at any time. A
SRCH order received during open trading that is not marketable
against the PBBO or the ABBO will be entered into the Phlx XLII
book. Once on the book, the SRCH order is eligible for routing if it
is locked or crossed by an away market. See Exchange Rule
1080(m)(iv)(C).
    \11\ See SR-Phlx-2012-41.
    \12\ Under the proposal, non-customer FIND orders would be
treated in the same manner as customer FIND orders, except that non-
customer FIND orders would not be eligible for routing during the
Opening Process. The proposed Routing Fees would apply to all orders
that are routed to an away market and would not apply to orders not
eligible for routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Section V of the
Pricing Schedule to add a new category ``Firm/Broker-Dealer/Market
Maker'' to correspond to the non-customer FIND orders that would be
eligible for Routing upon the effectiveness of SR-Phlx-2012-41 and its
proposed amendments to Rule 1080(m). The Exchange proposes to assess a
fixed Routing Fee of $0.55 per contract applicable to all away markets.
The Exchange has designated the new category ``Firm/Broker-Dealer/
Market Maker'' to be operative on the same date that SR-Phlx-2012-41
becomes operative.
    As with all fees, the Exchange may adjust these Routing Fees in
response to competitive conditions by filing a new proposed rule
change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Pricing
Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \13\ in general,
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \14\ in
particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges among Exchange members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed ISE Customer Routing Fee
for Select Symbols is reasonable because it seeks to recoup costs that
are incurred by the Exchange when routing certain

Customer orders to ISE on behalf of its members. Each destination
market's transaction charge varies and there is a standard clearing
charge for each transaction incurred by the Exchange along with other
administrative and technical costs that are incurred by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Routing Fee would enable the
Exchange to recover the customer taker fees assessed by ISE, plus
clearing and other administrative and technical fees for the execution
of Customer orders routed to ISE. The Exchange also believes that the
proposed Routing Fee is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because it would be uniformly applied to all Customer orders that are
routed to ISE and part of ISE's Select Symbols.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed new category of Routing Fee
``Firm/Broker-Dealer/Market Maker'' and the fixed $0.55 per contract
Routing Fee are reasonable because other options exchanges charge fees
for non-Customer orders such as Firm, Broker-Dealer and Market Maker
orders and these fees are consistently higher than fees for Customer
orders.\15\ The pricing on the various options exchanges for such
orders varies significantly from exchange to exchange, with much more
variation than for Customer orders. Accordingly, the Exchange is
proposing a $0.55 per contract side Routing Fee in order to capture the
majority of the transaction and clearing fees for Firm, Broker-Dealer
and Market Maker orders, while making the Exchange's Routing Fees
easier to calculate and predict for members whose proprietary orders
are routed away. In addition, fixed Routing Fees are easier to
comprehend by the members whose orders are routed away. There is no
uncertainty and it is simpler for members acting as agent for other
members to pass-through fees to its Customer. Currently, predicting,
calculating and charging back ``pass-through'' fees is an unduly
burdensome, expensive and complicated task for Exchange members whose
orders are routed away. The fixed Routing Fees for Firm, Broker-Dealer
and Market Maker orders should ease the burden, expense and complexity
of this task. Furthermore, fixed fees are easier to manage and maintain
for the Exchange, ensuring accurate billing and accounting. The
Exchange believes that the proposed new category of Routing Fee ``Firm/
Broker-Dealer/Market Maker'' and the fixed $0.55 per contract Routing
Fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange
would assess all Firm, Broker-Dealer and Market Maker orders, eligible
for routing to any away market, the same fee.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The NASDAQ Options Market LLC (``NOM'') assesses a fixed
Routing Fee to its Firms and Market Makers of $0.55 per contract.
See Chapter V, Section (2) of The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC's Rules.
In addition, the Chicago Board Options Exchange Incorporated
(``CBOE'') assesses non-customer orders, including voluntary
professionals and professionals, routing fees of $0.50 per contract
in addition to the customary CBOE execution charges. See CBOE's Fees
Schedule.
    \16\ A market participant may mark an order ``DNR'' for do not
route and therefore would not be subject to the fees noted herein.
See Rules 1066(h) and 1080(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 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 either solicited or 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.\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 No. SR-Phlx-2012-42 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 No. SR-Phlx-2012-42. 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
a.m. and 3 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2012-42 and should be
submitted on or before May 3, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8779 Filed 4-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0480.html
accessed 11-18-2021

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
Particulates not otherwise regulated
Synonyms & Trade Names
"Inert" dusts, Nuisance dusts, PNOR [Note: Includes all inert or nuisance dusts, whether mineral, inorganic, not listed specifically in 1910.1000.]
CAS No.
RTECS No.
DOT ID & Guide
Formula
Conversion
IDLH
N.D.
See: IDLH INDEX
Exposure Limits
NIOSH REL
See Appendix D

OSHA PEL
TWA 15 mg/m[3] (total) TWA 5 mg/m[3] (resp)
Measurement Methods
NIOSH 0500 , 0600
See: NMAM or OSHA Methods
Physical Description
Dusts from solid substances without specific occupational exposure standards.
Molecular Weight
Properties vary depending upon the specific solid.
Incompatibilities & Reactivities
Varies
Exposure Routes
inhalation, skin and/or eye contact
Symptoms
irritation eyes, skin, throat, upper respiratory system
Target Organs
Eyes, skin, respiratory system
Personal Protection/Sanitation
(See protection codes)
Skin:No recommendation
Eyes:No recommendation
Wash skin:No recommendation
Remove:No recommendation
Change:No recommendation
First Aid
(See procedures)
Eye:Irrigate immediately

Breathing:Fresh air
Respirator Recommendations
Not available.
Important additional information about respirator selection
See also
INTRODUCTION
                                          Page last reviewed: October 30, 2019
         Content source: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health