[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Notices]
[Page 35853-35855]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-135]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. PA-43; File No. S7-13-10]

Privacy Act of 1974: Systems of Records

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Notice to revise a system of records.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of
1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'' or ``SEC'') proposes to revise a Privacy Act system of
records: ``Information Pertaining or Relevant to SEC Registrants and
Their Activities (SEC-55)'', originally published in the Federal
Register Volume 74, Number 139 on Wednesday, July 22, 2009.

DATES: The proposed changes will become effective August 2, 2010 unless
further notice is given. The Commission will publish a new notice if
the effective date is delayed to review comments or if changes are made
based on comments received. To be assured of consideration, comments
should be received on or before July 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number S7-13-10 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 S7-13-10. This file number
should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us
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/other.shtml). Comments are
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. All comments
received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara A. Stance, Chief Privacy
Officer, Office of Information Technology,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission proposes to revise a system
of records: ``Information Pertaining or Relevant to SEC Registrants and
Their Activities (SEC-55)''. This system of

records is being amended to revise five routine uses, consolidate five
routine uses into two new routine uses, and add four additional routine
uses.
    The Commission has submitted a report of the revised system of
records to the appropriate Congressional committees and to the Director
of the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') as required by 5
U.S.C. 552a(r) (Privacy Act of 1974) and guidelines issued by OMB on
December 12, 2000 (65 FR 77677).
    Accordingly, the Commission is altering the system of records to
read as follows:
SEC-55

SYSTEM NAME:
    Information Pertaining or Relevant to SEC Registrants and Their
Activities.

SYSTEM LOCATION:
    Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549.
    Records also are maintained in the SEC's Regional Offices.

CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:
    Records concern individuals associated with entities or persons
that are registered with the SEC as brokers-dealers, investment
advisers, investment companies, self-regulatory organizations, clearing
agencies, nationally recognized statistical rating organizations, and
transfer agents (individually, a ``Registrant;'' collectively,
``Registrants''). Records may also concern persons, directly or
indirectly, with whom Registrants or their affiliates have client
relations or business arrangements.

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
    Records may contain information relating to the business activities
and transactions of Registrants and their associated persons, as well
as their compliance with provisions of the Federal securities laws and
with rules of self-regulatory organizations and clearing agencies.
Records may also contain information regarding the business activities
and transactions of individuals or entities with whom Registrants have
client relations or business arrangements.

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:
    15 U.S.C. 78a et seq., 80a-1 et seq., and 80b-1 et seq.

PURPOSE(S):
    1. For use by authorized SEC personnel in connection with their
official functions including, but not limited to, the conduct of
examinations for compliance with Federal securities laws,
investigations into possible violations of the Federal securities laws,
and other matters relating to the SEC's regulatory and law enforcement
functions.
    2. To maintain continuity within the SEC as to each Registrant and
to provide SEC staff with the background and results of earlier
examinations of Registrants, as well as an insight into current
industry practices or possible regulatory compliance issues.
    3. To conduct lawful relational searches or analysis or filtering
of data in matters relating to the SEC's examination, regulatory, or
law enforcement functions.

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES
OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:
    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C.
552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained
therein may specifically be disclosed as a routine use pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
    1. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (a) it is
suspected or confirmed that the security or confidentiality of
information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) the SEC
has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed
compromise, there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests,
identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this
system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the SEC or
another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information;
and (c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is
reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the SEC's efforts to
respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize,
or remedy such harm.
    2. To other Federal, State, local, or foreign law enforcement
agencies; securities self-regulatory organizations; and foreign
financial regulatory authorities to assist in or coordinate regulatory
or law enforcement activities with the SEC.
    3. To national securities exchanges and national securities
associations that are registered with the SEC, the Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board; the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; the Federal banking
authorities, including, but not limited to, the Board of Governors of
the Federal Reserve System, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; State securities regulatory
agencies or organizations; or regulatory authorities of a foreign
government in connection with their regulatory or enforcement
responsibilities.
    4. By SEC personnel for purposes of investigating possible
violations of, or to conduct investigations authorized by, the Federal
securities laws.
    5. In any proceeding where the Federal securities laws are in issue
or in which the Commission, or past or present members of its staff, is
a party or otherwise involved in an official capacity.
    6. In connection with proceedings by the Commission pursuant to
Rule 102(e) of its Rules of Practice, 17 CFR 201.102(e).
    7. To a bar association, State accountancy board, or other Federal,
State, local, or foreign licensing or oversight authority; or
professional association or self-regulatory authority to the extent
that it performs similar functions (including the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board) for investigations or possible disciplinary
action.
    8. To a Federal, State, local, Tribal, foreign, or international
agency, if necessary to obtain information relevant to the SEC's
decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee; the
issuance of a security clearance; the letting of a contract; or the
issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
    9. To a Federal, State, local, Tribal, foreign, or international
agency in response to its request for information concerning the hiring
or retention of an employee; the issuance of a security clearance; the
reporting of an investigation of an employee; the letting of a
contract; or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the
requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and
necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.
    10. To produce summary descriptive statistics and analytical
studies, as a data source for management information, in support of the
function for which the records are collected and maintained or for
related personnel management functions or manpower studies; may also be
used to respond to general requests for statistical information
(without personal identification of individuals) under the Freedom of
Information Act.
    11. To any trustee, receiver, master, special counsel, or other
individual or entity that is appointed by a court of competent
jurisdiction, or as a result of

an agreement between the parties in connection with litigation or
administrative proceedings involving allegations of violations of the
Federal securities laws (as defined in section 3(a)(47) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)) or pursuant to
the Commission's Rules of Practice, 17 CFR 201.100-900 or the
Commission's Rules of Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans, 17 CFR
201.1100-1106, or otherwise, where such trustee, receiver, master,
special counsel, or other individual or entity is specifically
designated to perform particular functions with respect to, or as a
result of, the pending action or proceeding or in connection with the
administration and enforcement by the Commission of the Federal
securities laws or the Commission's Rules of Practice or the Rules of
Fair Fund and Disgorgement Plans.
    12. To any persons during the course of any inquiry, examination,
or investigation conducted by the SEC's staff, or in connection with
civil litigation, if the staff has reason to believe that the person to
whom the record is disclosed may have further information about the
matters related therein, and those matters appeared to be relevant at
the time to the subject matter of the inquiry.
    13. To interns, grantees, experts, contractors, and others who have
been engaged by the Commission to assist in the performance of a
service related to this system of records and who need access to the
records for the purpose of assisting the Commission in the efficient
administration of its programs, including by performing clerical,
stenographic, or data analysis functions, or by reproduction of records
by electronic or other means. Recipients of these records shall be
required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
    14. In reports published by the Commission pursuant to authority
granted in the Federal securities laws (as such term is defined in
section 3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
78c(a)(47)), which authority shall include, but not be limited to,
section 21(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C.
78u(a)).
    15. To members of advisory committees that are created by the
Commission or by Congress to render advice and recommendations to the
Commission or to Congress, to be used solely in connection with their
official designated functions.
    16. To any person who is or has agreed to be subject to the
Commission's Rules of Conduct, 17 CFR 200.735-1 to 200.735-18, and who
assists in the investigation by the Commission of possible violations
of the Federal securities laws (as such term is defined in section
3(a)(47) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)),
in the preparation or conduct of enforcement actions brought by the
Commission for such violations, or otherwise in connection with the
Commission's enforcement or regulatory functions under the Federal
securities laws.
    17. To a Congressional office from the record of an individual in
response to an inquiry from the Congressional office made at the
request of that individual.
    18. To members of Congress, the press, and the public in response
to inquiries relating to particular Registrants and their activities,
and other matters under the Commission's jurisdiction.
    19. To prepare and publish information relating to violations of
the Federal securities laws as provided in 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(47)), as
amended.
    20. To respond to subpoenas in any litigation or other proceeding.
    21. To a trustee in bankruptcy.
    22. To members of Congress, the General Accountability Office, or
others charged with monitoring the work of the Commission or conducting
records management inspections.

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING,
AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:
STORAGE:
    Records are maintained in electronic format and paper form.
Electronic records are stored in computerized databases. Records stored
on other electronic media (e.g., magnetic disk, tape, optical disk) and
in paper form are stored in locked file rooms or file cabinets.

RETRIEVABILITY:
    Information is indexed by name of the Registrant or by certain SEC
identification numbers. Information regarding individuals may be
obtained through the use of cross-reference methodology or some form of
personal identifier. Access for inquiry purposes is generally via a
computer terminal.

SAFEGUARDS:
    Records are safeguarded in a secured environment. Buildings where
records are stored have security cameras and 24-hour security guard
service. Access is limited to those personnel whose official duties
require access. Computerized records are safeguarded through use of
access codes and information technology security. Contractors and other
recipients providing services to the Commission shall be required to
comply with the Privacy Act and applicable agency rules and regulations
issued under the Act.

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:
    These records will be maintained until they become inactive, at
which time they will be retired or destroyed in accordance with records
schedules of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and
as approved by the National Archives and Records Administration.

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS:
    Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology,
Securities and Exchange Commission, Operations Center, 6432 General
Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312-2413.

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:
    All requests to determine whether this system of records contains a
record pertaining to the requesting individual may be directed to the
FOIA/PA Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-5100.

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:
    Persons wishing to obtain information on the procedures for gaining
access to or contesting the contents of these records may contact the
FOIA/PA Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-5100.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:
    See Record Access Procedures above.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:
    Record sources include filings made by Registrants; information
obtained through examinations or investigations of Registrants and
their activities; information contained in SEC staff correspondence
with Registrants; information received from other Federal, State,
local, foreign, or other regulatory organizations or law enforcement
agencies; complaint information received by the SEC via letters,
telephone calls, e-mails or any other form of communication; and data
obtained from third-party sources.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:
    None.

    Dated: June 17, 2010.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15233 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 216 (Thursday, November 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60142-60143]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24236]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0242]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision and Extension
of a Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Hazardous
Materials Safety Permits

AGENCY: FMCSA, DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. The FMCSA requests
approval to revise and extend an existing ICR titled, ``Hazardous
Materials Safety Permits.'' This ICR requires companies holding permits
to develop and implement communications plans that allow for the
periodic tracking of the shipments. A record of the communications that
includes the name of the driver, identification of the vehicle,
permitted material(s) being transported, and the date, time and
location of each contact may be kept by either the driver (e.g.,
recorded in the log book) or the company. These records must be kept,
either physically or electronically, for at least six months at the
company's principal place of business or readily available to the
employees at the company's principal place of business. This ICR is
being revised only to the extent that the number of motor carriers with
an active Hazardous Materials (HM) Safety Permit has decreased from
1,304 to 987.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before January 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2019-0242 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or

comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8-794.pdf.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal website. If you want us to notify you
that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Suzanne Rach, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance, Hazardous Materials Division, Department of
Transportation, FMCSA, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
responsible for implementing regulations to issue safety permits for
transporting certain HM in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.
Currently, the HM Safety Permit regulations (49 CFR part 385, subpart
E) require companies applying for a HM Safety Permit that do not have a
USDOT number to file online at the FMCSA website via the Unified
Registration System (URS) before conducting operations in commerce that
require a safety permit. Safety permit applications for companies that
have a USDOT number and applications to update or renew a safety permit
must be filed with FMCSA using the form MCS-150B (Combined Motor
Carrier Identification Report and HMSP Application). The URS and MCS-
150B are covered under the FMCSA's OMB Control Number 2126-0013,
``Motor Carrier Identification Report,'' information collection
request. The FMCSA requires companies holding permits to develop a
communications plan that allows for the periodic tracking of the
shipment. This information collection request covers the record of
communications that includes the name of the driver, identification of
the vehicle, permitted material(s) being transported, and the date,
location and time of each contact. The records may be kept by either
the driver (e.g., recorded in the log book) or the company. These
records must be kept, either physically or electronically, for at least
six months at the company's principal place of business or be readily
available to employees at the company's principal place of business.
    Title: Hazardous Materials Safety Permits.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0030.
    Type of Request: Revision and extension of a currently-approved
information collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers subject to the Hazardous Materials
Safety Permit requirements in 49 CFR part 385, subpart E.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 987.
    Estimated Time per Response: 5 minutes. The communication between
motor carriers and their drivers must take place at least two times per
day, and at the pickup and delivery of each permitted load. It is
estimated that it will take 5 minutes to maintain a daily communication
record for each driver.
    Expiration Date: August 31, 2020.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 692,000 hours [8.3 million trips x 5
minutes per record / 60 minutes per hour = 691,667 rounded to 692,000]
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: October 31, 2019.
Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2019-24236 Filed 11-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 217 (Thursday, November 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67901-67907]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24533]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742; FRL-9946-02-OCSPP]

Methylene Chloride; Revision to Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) Risk Determination; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the
availability of the final revision to the risk determination for the
methylene chloride risk evaluation issued under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA). The revision to the methylene chloride risk
determination reflects the announced policy changes to ensure the
public is protected from unreasonable risks from chemicals in a way
that is supported by science and the law. EPA determined that methylene
chloride, as a whole chemical substance, presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health when evaluated under its conditions of use. In
addition, this revised risk determination does not reflect an
assumption that workers always appropriately wear personal protective
equipment (PPE). EPA understands that there could be occupational
safety protections in place at workplace locations; however, not
assuming use of PPE reflects EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk
may exist for subpopulations of workers that may be highly exposed
because they are not covered by Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) standards, or their employers are out of
compliance with OSHA standards, or because many of OSHA's chemical-
specific permissible exposure limits largely adopted in the 1970's are
described by OSHA as being ``outdated and inadequate for ensuring
protection of worker health,'' or because the OSHA permissible exposure
limit (PEL) alone may be inadequate for ensuring protection of worker
health, or because EPA finds unreasonable risk for purposes of TSCA
notwithstanding OSHA requirements. This revision supersedes the
condition of use-specific no unreasonable risk determinations in the
June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation and withdraws the
associated TSCA order included in the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk
Evaluation.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0742, is available online
at https://www.regulations.gov or in-person 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 20460-0001. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional instructions on visiting the
docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is
available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Ingrid Feustel, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7404M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing,
distribution, use, disposal, and/or the assessment of risks involving
chemical substances and mixtures. You may be potentially affected by
this action if you manufacture (defined under TSCA to include import),
process (including recycling), distribute in commerce, use or dispose
of methylene chloride, including methylene chloride in products. Since
other entities may also be interested in this revision to the risk
determination, EPA has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. What is EPA's authority for taking this action?

    TSCA section 6, 15 U.S.C. 2605, requires EPA to conduct risk
evaluations to determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without
consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors, including an
unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation
(PESS) identified as relevant to the risk evaluation by the
Administrator, under the conditions of use. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(A).
TSCA sections 6(b)(4)(A) through (H) enumerate the deadlines and
minimum requirements applicable to this process, including provisions
that provide instruction on chemical substances that must undergo
evaluation, the minimum components of a TSCA risk evaluation, and the
timelines for public comment and completion of the risk evaluation.
TSCA also requires that EPA operate in a manner that is consistent with
the best available science, make decisions based on the weight of the
scientific evidence, and consider reasonably available information. 15
U.S.C. 2625(h), (i), and (k).
    The statute identifies the minimum components for all chemical
substance risk evaluations. For each risk evaluation, EPA must publish
a document that outlines the scope of the risk evaluation to be
conducted, which includes the hazards, exposures, conditions of use,
and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations that EPA
expects to consider. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(D). The statute further
provides that each risk evaluation must also: (1) integrate and assess
available information on hazards and exposures for the conditions of
use of the chemical substance, including information that is relevant
to specific risks of injury to health or the environment and
information on relevant potentially exposed or susceptible
subpopulations; (2) describe whether aggregate or sentinel exposures
were considered and the basis for that consideration; (3) take into
account, where relevant, the likely duration, intensity, frequency, and
number of exposures under the conditions of use; and (4) describe the
weight of the scientific evidence for the identified hazards and
exposures. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(i) through (ii) and (iv) through
(v). Each risk evaluation must not consider costs or other nonrisk
factors. 15 U.S.C. 2605(b)(4)(F)(iii).
    EPA has inherent authority to reconsider previous decisions and to
revise, replace, or repeal a decision to the extent permitted by law
and supported by reasoned explanation. FCC v. Fox Television Stations,
Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); see also Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v.
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 42 (1983).

C. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is announcing the availability of the final revision to the
risk determination for the methylene chloride risk evaluation issued
under TSCA that published in June 2020 (Ref. 1). In July 2022, EPA
sought public comment on the draft revisions (87 FR 39824, July 5,
2022). EPA appreciates the public comments received on the draft
revision to the methylene chloride risk determination. After review of
these comments and consideration of the specific circumstances of
methylene chloride, EPA concludes that the Agency's risk determination
for methylene chloride is better characterized as a whole chemical risk
determination rather than condition-of-use-specific risk
determinations. Accordingly, EPA is revising and replacing Section 5 of
the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) where the
findings of unreasonable risk to health were previously made for the
individual conditions of use evaluated. EPA is also withdrawing the
previously issued TSCA section 6(i)(l) order for six conditions of use
previously determined not to present unreasonable risk which was
included in Section 5.4.1 of the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 2).
    This final revision to the methylene chloride risk determination is
consistent with EPA's plans to revise specific aspects of the first ten
TSCA chemical risk evaluations to ensure that the risk evaluations
better align with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the
environment. As a result of this revision, removing the assumption that
workers always and appropriately wear PPE (see Unit II.C.) means that:
five additional conditions of use in addition to the original 47 drive
the unreasonable risk determination for methylene chloride; inhalation
risk to workers in addition to the previously identified inhalation
risk to occupational non-users (ONUs) drive the unreasonable risk in
three conditions of use; and additional risk to workers for acute and
chronic non-cancer dermal exposures and for cancer from inhalation
exposures also drive the unreasonable risk in many of those 52
conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were
identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic non-cancer
effects and/or acute effects). However, EPA is not making condition-of-
use-specific risk determinations for those conditions of use, and for
purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is not issuing a final order under
TSCA section 6(i)(1) and does not consider the revised risk
determination to constitute a final agency action at this point in
time. Overall, 52 conditions of use out of 53 EPA evaluated drive the
methylene chloride whole chemical unreasonable risk determination due
to risks identified for human health. The full list of the conditions
of use evaluated for the methylene chloride TSCA risk evaluation is in
Tables 4-2 and 4-3 of the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation
(Ref. 2).

II. Background

A. Why is EPA re-issuing the risk determination for the methylene
chloride risk evaluation conducted under TSCA?

    In accordance with Executive Order 13990 (``Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate
Crisis'') and other Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6),
EPA reviewed the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical
substances, including methylene chloride, to ensure that they meet the
requirements of TSCA, including conducting decision-making in a manner
that is consistent with the best available science.
    As a result of this review, EPA announced plans to revise specific
aspects of the first ten risk evaluations in order to ensure that the
risk evaluations appropriately identify unreasonable risks and thereby
help ensure the protection of human health and the environment (Ref.
7). Following a review of specific aspects of the June 2020 Methylene
Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) and after considering

comments received on a draft revised risk determination for methylene
chloride, EPA has determined that making an unreasonable risk
determination for methylene chloride as a whole chemical substance,
rather than making unreasonable risk determinations separately on each
individual condition of use evaluated in the risk evaluation, is the
most appropriate approach for methylene chloride under the statute and
implementing regulations. In addition, EPA's final risk determination
is explicit insofar as it does not rely on assumptions regarding the
use of PPE in making the unreasonable risk determination under TSCA
section 6, even though some facilities might be using PPE as one means
to reduce worker exposures; rather, the use of PPE as a means of
addressing unreasonable risk will be considered during risk management,
as appropriate.
    Separately, EPA is conducting a screening approach to assess
potential risks from the air and water pathways for several of the
first 10 chemicals, including this chemical. For methylene chloride the
exposure pathways that were or could be regulated under another EPA
administered statute were excluded from the final risk evaluation (see
section 1.4.2 of the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation).
This resulted in the surface water, drinking water and ambient air
pathways for methylene chloride not being assessed. The goal of the
recently-developed screening approach is to remedy this exclusion and
to identify if there may be risks that were unaccounted for in the
methylene chloride risk evaluation.
    The screening-level approach has gone through public comment and
independent external peer review through the SACC. The Agency received
the final peer review report on May 18, 2022, and has reviewed public
comments and SACC comments. EPA expects to describe its views regarding
the chemical-specific application of this screening-level approach in
the forthcoming proposed rule under TSCA section 6(a) for methylene
chloride.
    This action pertains only to the risk determination for methylene
chloride. While EPA intends to consider and may take additional similar
actions on other of the first ten chemicals, EPA is taking a chemical-
specific approach to reviewing these risk evaluations and is
incorporating new policy direction in a surgical manner, while being
mindful of Congressional direction on the need to complete risk
evaluations and move toward any associated risk management activities
in accordance with statutory deadlines.

B. What is a whole chemical view of the unreasonable risk determination
for the methylene chloride risk evaluation?

    TSCA section 6 repeatedly refers to determining whether a chemical
substance presents unreasonable risk under its conditions of use.
Stakeholders have disagreed over whether a chemical substance should
receive: A single determination that is comprehensive for the chemical
substance after considering the conditions of use, referred to as a
whole-chemical determination; or multiple determinations, each of which
is specific to a condition of use, referred to as condition-of-use-
specific determinations.
    As explained in the Federal Register document announcing the
availability of the draft revised risk determination for methylene
chloride (87 FR 39824, July 5, 2022 (FRL-9946-01-OCSPP)), the proposed
Risk Evaluation Procedural Rule (Ref. 8) was premised on the whole
chemical approach to making unreasonable risk determinations. In that
proposed rule, EPA acknowledged a lack of specificity in statutory text
that might lead to different views about whether the statute compelled
EPA's risk evaluations to address all conditions of use of a chemical
substance or whether EPA had discretion to evaluate some subset of
conditions of use (i.e., to scope out some manufacturing, processing,
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal activities), but also stated
that ``EPA believes the word `the' [in TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A)] is best
interpreted as calling for evaluation that considers all conditions of
use.'' The proposed rule, however, was unambiguous on the point that
unreasonable risk determinations would be for the chemical substance as
a whole, even if based on a subset of uses. See Ref. 8 at pages 7565-66
(``TSCA section 6(b)(4)(A) specifies that a risk evaluation must
determine whether `a chemical substance' presents an unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment `under the conditions of use.'
The evaluation is on the chemical substance--not individual conditions
of use--and it must be based on `the conditions of use.' In this
context, EPA believes the word `the' is best interpreted as calling for
evaluation that considers all conditions of use.''). In the proposed
regulatory text, EPA proposed to determine whether the chemical
substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the
environment under the conditions of use. (Ref. 8 at 7480.)
    The final Risk Evaluation Procedural Rule stated (82 FR 33726, July
20, 2017 (FRL-9964-38)) (Ref. 9): ``As part of the risk evaluation, EPA
will determine whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment under each condition of
uses [sic] within the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single
decision document or in multiple decision documents'' (40 CFR 702.47).
For the unreasonable risk determinations in the first ten risk
evaluations, EPA applied this provision by making individual risk
determinations for each condition of use evaluated as part of each risk
evaluation document (i.e., the condition-of-use-specific approach to
risk determinations). That approach was based on one particular passage
in the preamble to the final Risk Evaluation Rule which stated that EPA
will make individual risk determinations for all conditions of use
identified in the scope. (Ref. 9 at 33744).
    In contrast to this portion of the preamble of the final Risk
Evaluation Rule, the regulatory text itself and other statements in the
preamble reference a risk determination for the chemical substance
under its conditions of use, rather than separate risk determinations
for each of the conditions of use of a chemical substance. In the key
regulatory provision excerpted previously from 40 CFR 702.47, the text
explains that ``[a]s part of the risk evaluation, EPA will determine
whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable risk of injury
to health or the environment under each condition of uses [sic] within
the scope of the risk evaluation, either in a single decision document
or in multiple decision documents'' (Ref. 9, emphasis added). Other
language reiterates this perspective. For example, 40 CFR 702.31(a)
states that the purpose of the rule is to establish the EPA process for
conducting a risk evaluation to determine whether a chemical substance
presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment as
required under TSCA section 6(b)(4)(B). Likewise, there are recurring
references to whether the chemical substance presents an unreasonable
risk in 40 CFR 702.41(a). See, for example, 40 CFR 702.41(a)(6), which
explains that the extent to which EPA will refine its evaluations for
one or more condition of use in any risk evaluation will vary as
necessary to determine whether a chemical substance presents an
unreasonable risk. Notwithstanding the one preambular statement about
condition-of-use-specific risk

determinations, the preamble to the final rule also contains support
for a risk determination on the chemical substance as a whole. In
discussing the identification of the conditions of use of a chemical
substance, the preamble notes that this task inevitably involves the
exercise of discretion on EPA's part, and ``as EPA interprets the
statute, the Agency is to exercise that discretion consistent with the
objective of conducting a technically sound, manageable evaluation to
determine whether a chemical substance--not just individual uses or
activities--presents an unreasonable risk'' (Ref. 9 at 33729).
    Therefore, notwithstanding EPA's choice to issue condition-of-use-
specific risk determinations to date, EPA interprets its risk
evaluation regulation to also allow the Agency to issue whole-chemical
risk determinations. Either approach is permissible under the
regulation. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also
recognized the ambiguity of the regulation on this point. Safer
Chemicals v. EPA, 943 F.3d. 397, 413 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding a
challenge about ``use-by-use risk evaluations [was] not justiciable
because it is not clear, due to the ambiguous text of the Risk
Evaluation Rule, whether the Agency will actually conduct risk
evaluations in the manner Petitioners fear'').
    EPA plans to consider the appropriate approach for each chemical
substance risk evaluation on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
considerations relevant to the specific chemical substance in light of
the Agency's obligations under TSCA. The Agency expects that this case-
by-case approach will provide greater flexibility in the Agency's
ability to evaluate and manage unreasonable risk from individual
chemical substances. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach under
TSCA and the Agency's implementing regulations.
    With regard to the specific circumstances of methylene chloride,
EPA has determined that a whole chemical approach is appropriate for
methylene chloride in order to protect health. The whole chemical
approach is appropriate for methylene chloride because there are
benchmark exceedances for a substantial number of conditions of use
(spanning across most aspects of the chemical lifecycle-from
manufacturing (including import), processing, industrial and commercial
use, consumer use, and disposal) for workers, occupational non-users,
consumers, and bystanders and irreversible health effects (specifically
cancer, coma, hypoxia, and death) associated with methylene chloride
exposures. Because these chemical-specific properties cut across the
conditions of use within the scope of the risk evaluation, a
substantial number of the conditions of use drive the unreasonable
risk; therefore, it is appropriate for the Agency to make a
determination for methylene chloride that the whole chemical presents
an unreasonable risk.
    As explained later in this document, the revisions to the
unreasonable risk determination (Section 5 of the June 2020 Methylene
Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2)) follow the issuance of a draft
revision to the TSCA methylene chloride unreasonable risk determination
(87 FR 39824, July 5, 2022) and the receipt of public comment. A
response to comments document is also being issued with the final
revised unreasonable risk determination for methylene chloride (Ref.
10). The revisions to the unreasonable risk determination are based on
the existing risk characterization section of the June 2020 Methylene
Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) (Section 4) and do not involve
additional technical or scientific analysis. The discussion of the
issues in this Federal Register document and in the accompanying final
revised risk determination for methylene chloride supersede any
conflicting statements in the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 2) and the earlier response to comments document (Ref.
11). EPA views the peer reviewed hazard and exposure assessments and
associated risk characterization as robust and upholding the standards
of best available science and weight of the scientific evidence per
TSCA sections 26(h) and (i).
    For purposes of TSCA section 6(i), EPA is making a risk
determination on methylene chloride as a whole chemical. Under the
revised approach, the ``whole chemical'' risk determination for
methylene chloride supersedes the no unreasonable risk determinations
for methylene chloride that were premised on a condition-of-use-
specific approach to determining unreasonable risk and also contains an
order withdrawing the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order in Section 5.4.1 of
the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2).

C. What revision is EPA now making final about the use of PPE for the
methylene chloride risk evaluation?

    In the risk evaluations for the first ten chemical substances, as
part of the unreasonable risk determination, EPA assumed for several
conditions of use that workers were provided and always used PPE in a
manner that achieves the stated assigned protection factor (APF) for
respiratory protection, or used impervious gloves for dermal
protection. In support of this assumption, EPA used reasonably
available information such as public comments indicating that some
employers, particularly in the industrial setting, provide PPE to their
employees and follow established worker protection standards (e.g.,
OSHA requirements for protection of workers).
    For the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2), EPA
assumed, based on reasonably available information, including public
comment and safety data sheets for methylene chloride, that workers use
PPE--specifically respirators with an APF ranging from 25 to 50--for 26
occupational conditions of use and gloves with PF 10 or 20 for 39
occupational conditions of use. However, in the June 2020 Methylene
Chloride Risk Evaluation, EPA determined that there is unreasonable
risk to workers for 32 of those conditions of use.
    EPA is revising the assumption for methylene chloride that workers
always and properly use PPE, although it does not question the public
comments received regarding the occupational safety practices often
followed by industry respondents. When characterizing the risk to human
health from occupational exposures during risk evaluation under TSCA,
EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels of risk present
in baseline scenarios where PPE is not assumed to be used by workers.
This approach of not assuming PPE use by workers considers the risk to
potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations of workers who may
not be covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed individuals and
public sector workers who are not covered by a State Plan. It should be
noted that, in some cases, baseline conditions may reflect certain
mitigation measures, such as engineering controls, in instances where
exposure estimates are based on monitoring data at facilities that have
engineering controls in place.
    In addition, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate the levels
of risk present in scenarios considering applicable OSHA requirements
(e.g., chemical-specific permissible exposure limits (PELs) and/or
chemical-specific PELs with additional substance-specific standards),
as well as scenarios considering industry or sector best practices for
industrial hygiene that are clearly articulated to the Agency.
Consistent with this approach, the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk

Evaluation (Ref. 2) characterized risk to workers both with and without
the use of PPE. By characterizing risks using scenarios that reflect
different levels of mitigation, EPA risk evaluations can help inform
potential risk management actions by providing information that could
be used during risk management to tailor risk mitigation appropriately
to address any unreasonable risk identified, or to ensure that
applicable OSHA requirements or industry or sector best practices that
address the unreasonable risk are required for all potentially exposed
and susceptible subpopulations (including self-employed individuals and
public sector workers who are not covered by an OSHA State Plan).
    When undertaking unreasonable risk determinations as part of TSCA
risk evaluations, however, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to
assume as a general matter that an applicable OSHA requirement or
industry practice related to PPE use is consistently and always
properly applied. Mitigation scenarios included in the EPA risk
evaluation (e.g., scenarios considering use of various PPE) likely
represent what is happening already in some facilities. However, the
Agency cannot assume that all facilities have adopted these practices
for the purposes of making the TSCA risk determination (Ref. 12).
    Therefore, EPA is making a determination of unreasonable risk for
methylene chloride from a baseline scenario that does not assume
compliance with OSHA standards, including any applicable exposure
limits or requirements for use of respiratory protection or other PPE.
Making unreasonable risk determinations based on the baseline scenario
should not be viewed as an indication that EPA believes there are no
occupational safety protections in place at any location, or that there
is widespread non-compliance with applicable OSHA standards. Rather, it
reflects EPA's recognition that unreasonable risk may exist for
subpopulations of workers that may be highly exposed because they are
not covered by OSHA standards, such as self-employed individuals and
public sector workers who are not covered by a State Plan, or because
their employer is out of compliance with OSHA standards, or because
many of OSHA's chemical-specific permissible exposure limits largely
adopted in the 1970's are described by OSHA as being ``outdated and
inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health,'' (Ref. 13) or
because the OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit alone may be inadequate to
protect human health, or because EPA finds unreasonable risk for
purposes of TSCA notwithstanding OSHA requirements.
    In accordance with this approach, EPA is finalizing the revision to
the methylene chloride risk determination without relying on
assumptions regarding the occupational use of PPE in making the
unreasonable risk determination under TSCA section 6; rather,
information on the use of PPE as a means of mitigating risk (including
public comments received from industry respondents about occupational
safety practices in use) will be considered during the risk management
phase, as appropriate. This represents a change from the approach taken
in the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). As a
general matter, when undertaking risk management actions, EPA intends
to strive for consistency with applicable OSHA requirements and
industry best practices, including appropriate application of the
hierarchy of controls, to the extent that applying those measures would
address the identified unreasonable risk, including unreasonable risk
to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. Consistent with
TSCA section 9(d), EPA will consult and coordinate TSCA activities with
OSHA and other relevant Federal agencies for the purpose of achieving
the maximum applicability of TSCA while avoiding the imposition of
duplicative requirements. Informed by the mitigation scenarios and
information gathered during the risk evaluation and risk management
process, the Agency might propose rules that require risk management
practices that may be already common practice in many or most
facilities. Adopting clear, comprehensive regulatory standards will
foster compliance across all facilities (ensuring a level playing
field) and assure protections for all affected workers, especially in
cases where current OSHA standards may not apply or be sufficient to
address the unreasonable risk.
    Removing the assumption that workers always and appropriately wear
PPE in making the whole chemical risk determination for methylene
chloride means that: five conditions of use in addition to the original
47 conditions of use drive the unreasonable risk for methylene
chloride; an additional route of exposure (i.e., inhalation) is also
identified as driving the unreasonable risk to workers in three
conditions of use in addition to the previously identified inhalation
risk to occupational non-users; and additional risks to workers for
acute and chronic non-cancer dermal exposures and for cancer from
inhalation exposures also drive the unreasonable risk in many of those
52 conditions of use (where previously those conditions of use were
identified as presenting unreasonable risk only for chronic non-cancer
effects and/or acute effects). The finalized revision to the methylene
chloride risk determination clarifies that EPA does not rely on the
assumed use of PPE when making the risk determination for the whole
substance.

D. What is methylene chloride?

    Methylene chloride, which is also called dichloromethane, is a
volatile chemical that is produced and imported into the United States,
with use estimated at over 260 million pounds per year. It is a solvent
used in a variety of industries and applications, such as adhesives,
paint and coating products, metal cleaning, chemical processing, and
aerosols. In addition, it is used as a propellent, processing aid, or
functional fluid in the manufacturing of other chemicals. A variety of
consumer and commercial products use methylene chloride as a solvent
including sealants, automotive products, and paint and coating
removers. Methylene chloride is subject to federal and state
regulations and reporting requirements.

E. What conclusions is EPA finalizing today in the revised TSCA risk
evaluation based on the whole chemical approach and not assuming the
use of PPE?

    EPA determined that methylene chloride presents an unreasonable
risk to health under the conditions of use. EPA's unreasonable risk
determination for methylene chloride as a chemical substance is driven
by risks associated with the following conditions of use, considered
singularly or in combination with other exposures:
     Manufacturing--Domestic manufacture;
     Manufacturing--Import;
     Processing into a formulation, mixture, or reaction
product;
     Processing as a reactant;
     Processing: recycling;
     Repackaging;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for batch vapor
degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for in-line vapor
degreasing;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent for cold
cleaning; and commercial use as a solvent for aerosol spray degreasers/
cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use in adhesives, sealants, and
caulks;
     Industrial and commercial use in paints and coatings;
     Industrial and commercial use in paint and coating
removers;

     Industrial and commercial use in adhesive and caulk
removers;
     Industrial and commercial use as metal aerosol degreasers;
     Industrial and commercial use in metal non-aerosol
degreasers;
     Industrial and commercial use in finishing products for
fabric, textiles, and leather;
     Industrial and commercial use in automotive care products
(functional fluids for air conditioners);
     Industrial and commercial use in automotive care products
(interior car care);
     Industrial and commercial use in automotive care products
(degreasers);
     Industrial and commercial use in apparel and footwear care
products;
     Industrial and commercial use in spot removers for apparel
and textiles;
     Industrial and commercial use in liquid lubricants and
greases;
     Industrial and commercial use in spray lubricants and
greases;
     Industrial and commercial use in aerosol degreasers and
cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use in non-aerosol degreasers
and cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use in cold pipe insulations;
     Industrial and commercial use as solvent that becomes part
of a formulation or mixture;
     Industrial and commercial use as a processing aid;
     Industrial and commercial use as propellant and blowing
agent;
     Industrial and commercial use for electrical equipment,
appliance, and component manufacturing;
     Industrial and commercial use for plastic and rubber
products manufacturing;
     Industrial and commercial use for cellulose triacetate
film production;
     Industrial and commercial use as anti-spatter welding
aerosol;
     Industrial and commercial use for oil and gas drilling,
extraction, and support activities;
     Industrial and commercial uses for toys, playgrounds, and
sporting equipments (including novelty articles);
     Industrial and commercial use for carbon removers, wood
floor cleaners, and brush cleaners;
     Industrial and commercial use as a lithographic printing
plate cleaner;
     Industrial and commercial use as a laboratory chemical;
     Consumer use as a solvent in an aerosol cleaner/degreaser;
     Consumer use in adhesives and sealants;
     Consumer use in paints and coatings (brush cleaners for
paints and coatings);
     Consumer use in adhesives/caulk removers;
     Consumer use in aerosol and non- aerosol metal degreasers;
     Consumer use in automotive functional fluids (air
conditioners refrigerant, treatment, leak sealer);
     Consumer use in automotive degreasers (gasket remover,
transmission cleaners, carburetor);
     Consumer use in aerosol and non-aerosol lubricants and
greases, consumer use in cold pipe insulation;
     Consumer use in aerosol and non-aerosol lubricants/greases
and aerosol and non-aerosol degreaser/cleaners;
     Consumer use in cold pipe insulation;
     Consumer use in crafting glue and cement/concrete;
     Consumer use in anti-adhesive agent--anti-spatter welding
aerosol;
     Consumer use in carbon remover and brush cleaner; and
     Disposal.
    The following condition of use does not drive EPA's unreasonable
risk determination for methylene chloride:
     Distribution in commerce.
    EPA is not making a condition of use-specific risk determination
for this condition of use, is not issuing a final order under TSCA
section 6(i)(1) for this condition of use, and does not consider the
revised risk determination for methylene chloride to constitute a final
agency action at this point in time.
    Consistent with the statutory requirements of TSCA section 6(a),
EPA will propose a risk management regulatory action to the extent
necessary so that methylene chloride no longer presents an unreasonable
risk. EPA expects to focus its risk management action on the conditions
of use that drive the unreasonable risk. However, it should be noted
that, under TSCA section 6(a), EPA is not limited to regulating the
specific activities found to drive unreasonable risk and may select
from among a suite of risk management requirements in section 6(a)
related to manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in
commerce, commercial use, and disposal as part of its regulatory
options to address the unreasonable risk. As a general example, EPA may
regulate upstream activities (e.g., processing, distribution in
commerce) to address downstream activities (e.g., consumer uses)
driving unreasonable risk, even if the upstream activities do not drive
the unreasonable risk.

III. Summary of Public Comments

    EPA received a total of 20 public comments on the July 5, 2022,
draft revised risk determination for methylene chloride during the
comment period that ended August 4, 2022, of which 19 were unique and
responsive to the request for comments. Commenters included trade
organizations, industry stakeholders, environmental groups, and non-
governmental health advocacy organizations. A separate document that
summarizes all comments submitted and EPA's responses to those comments
has been prepared and is available in the docket for this notice (Ref.
10).

IV. Revision of the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation

A. Why is EPA revising the risk determination for the methylene
chloride risk evaluation?

    EPA is finalizing the revised risk determination for the methylene
chloride risk evaluation pursuant to TSCA section 6(b) and consistent
with Executive Order 13990, (``Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis'') and
other Administration priorities (Refs. 3, 4, 5, and 6). EPA is revising
specific aspects of the first ten TSCA existing chemical risk
evaluations in order to ensure that the risk evaluations better align
with TSCA's objective of protecting health and the environment. For the
methylene chloride risk evaluation, this includes: (1) Making the risk
determination in this instance based on the whole chemical substance
instead of by individual conditions of use and (2) Emphasizing that EPA
does not rely on the assumed use of PPE when making the risk
determination.

B. What are the revisions?

    EPA is now finalizing the revised risk determination for the June
2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) pursuant to TSCA
section 6(b). Under the revised determination (Ref. 1), EPA concludes
that methylene chloride, as evaluated in the risk evaluation as a
whole, presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health when evaluated
under its conditions of use. This revision replaces the previous
unreasonable risk determinations made for methylene chloride by
individual conditions of use, supersedes the determinations (and
withdraws the associated order) of no unreasonable risk for the
conditions of use identified in the TSCA section 6(i)(1) no
unreasonable risk order, and clarifies the lack of reliance on assumed
use of PPE as part of the risk determination.
    These revisions do not alter any of the underlying technical or
scientific information that informs the risk characterization, and as
such the hazard, exposure, and risk characterization sections are not

changed, except to statements about PPE assumptions in Section <IP_ADDRESS>
(Consideration of Engineering Controls and PPE). The discussion of the
issues in this Notice and in the accompanying final revision to the
risk determination supersede any conflicting statements in the prior
executive summary, and Section <IP_ADDRESS> from the June 2020 Methylene
Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2) and the response to comments document
(Ref. 11).
    The revised unreasonable risk determination for methylene chloride
includes additional explanation of how the risk evaluation
characterizes the applicable OSHA requirements, or industry or sector
best practices, and also clarifies that no additional analysis was
done, and the risk determination is based on the risk characterization
(Section 4) of the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref.
2).

C. Will the revised risk determination be peer reviewed?

    The risk determination (Section 5 of the June 2020 Methylene
Chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2)) was not part of the scope of the
Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) peer review of the
methylene chloride risk evaluation. Thus, consistent with that
approach, EPA did not conduct peer review of the final revised
unreasonable risk determination for the methylene chloride risk
evaluation because no technical or scientific changes were made to the
hazard or exposure assessments or the risk characterization.

V. Order Withdrawing Previous Order Regarding Unreasonable Risk
Determinations for Certain Conditions of Use

    EPA is also issuing a new order to withdraw the TSCA Section
6(i)(1) no unreasonable risk order issued in Section 5.4.1 of the 2020
methylene chloride Risk Evaluation (Ref. 2). This final revised risk
determination supersedes the condition of use-specific no unreasonable
risk determinations in the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk Evaluation
(Ref. 2). The order contained in Section 5.5 of the revised risk
determination (Ref. 1) withdraws the TSCA section 6(i)(1) order
contained in Section 5.4.1 of the June 2020 Methylene Chloride Risk
Evaluation (Ref. 2). Consistent with the statutory requirements of
section 6(a), the Agency will propose risk management action to address
the unreasonable risk determined in the methylene chloride risk
evaluation.

VI. 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 person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Unreasonable Risk Determination for Methylene Chloride.
October 2022.
2. EPA. Risk Evaluation for Methylene Chloride. June 2020. EPA
Document #740-R1-8010. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437-0107.
3. Executive Order 13990. Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.
Federal Register (86 FR 7037, January 25, 2021).
4. Executive Order 13985. Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Federal
Register (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021).
5. Executive Order 14008. Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad. Federal Register (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021).
6. Presidential Memorandum. Memorandum on Restoring Trust in
Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based
Policymaking. Federal Register (86 FR 8845, February 10, 2021).
7. EPA. Press Release: EPA Announces Path Forward for TSCA Chemical
Risk Evaluations. June 2021. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-path-forward-tsca-chemical-risk-evaluations.
8. EPA. Proposed Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register (82 FR
7562, January 19, 2017) (FRL-9957-75).
9. EPA. Final Rule; Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under
the Amended Toxic Substances Control Act. Federal Register (82 FR
33726, 33744, July 20, 2017).
10. EPA. Response to Public Comments to the Revised Unreasonable
Risk Determination; Methylene Chloride (MC). October 2022.
11. EPA. Summary of External Peer Review and Public Comments and
Disposition for Methylene Chloride (MC). June 2020. Available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2019-0437-0083.
12. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Top 10
Most Frequently Cited Standards for Fiscal Year 2021 (Oct. 1, 2020,
to Sept. 30, 2021). Accessed October 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/top10citedstandards
13. OSHA. Permissible Exposure Limits--Annotated Tables. Accessed
June 13, 2022. https://www.osha.gov/annotated-pels.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: November 4, 2022.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2022-24533 Filed 11-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: January 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 11)]
[Notices]
[Page 2964-2967]
[DOCID:fr16ja08-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57115; File No. SR-ISE-2007-103]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Permit
Trading Pursuant to Unlisted Trading Privileges of Shares of Eight
Funds of the ProShares Trust

 January 8, 2008.
    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 26, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by
the Exchange. On January 4, 20007, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1
to the proposed rule change. This order provides notice of the proposed
rule change, as amended, and approves the proposal on an accelerated
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 trade, pursuant to unlisted trading
privileges (``UTP''), shares (``Shares'') of the following eight funds
of the ProShares Trust (``Trust''): (1) Short MSCI Emerging Markets
ProShares; (2) Short MSCI Japan ProShares; (3) Short MSCI EAFE
ProShares; (4) Short FTSE/Xinhua China 25 ProShares; (5) UltraShort
MSCI Emerging Markets ProShares; (6) UltraShort MSCI Japan ProShares;
(7) UltraShort MSCI EAFE ProShares; and (8) UltraShort FTSE/Xinhua
China 25 ProShares (collectively, ``Funds'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
principal office, on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.ise.com), 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, ISE 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 III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to trade the Shares pursuant to UTP. The
Commission has approved a proposal by the American Stock Exchange LLC
(``Amex'') to list and trade the funds.\3\ The Exchange is submitting
this filing because its current generic listing standards for exchange-
traded funds (``ETFs'') do not extend to ETFs where the investment
objective corresponds to a specified multiple of the performance, or
the inverse performance, of an index that underlies a Fund (each such
index is referred to below as an ``Underlying Index''), rather than
merely mirroring the performance of the index. Currently, the Shares
trade on the Amex and NYSE Arca.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56223 (August 8,
2007), 72 FR 45837 (August 15, 2007) (SR-Amex-2007-60).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56601 (October 2,
2007), 72 FR 51625 (October 10, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Short Funds. Certain Funds seek daily investment results, before
fees and expenses, that correspond to the inverse or opposite of the
daily performance (-100%) of the Underlying Indexes (``Short Funds'').
If such a Fund is successful in meeting its objective, the net asset
value (``NAV'') \5\ of the corresponding Shares should increase
approximately as much (on a percentage basis) as the Underlying Index
loses when the prices of the securities in the Underlying Index decline
on a given day or, alternatively, should decrease approximately as much
as the Underlying Index gains when prices in the Underlying Index rise
on a given day. The Short Funds are: (1) Short MSCI Emerging Markets
ProShares; (2) Short MSCI Japan ProShares; (3) Short MSCI EAFE
ProShares; and (4) Short FTSE/Xinhua China 25 ProShares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NAV per Share of each Fund is computed by dividing the value
of the net assets of such Fund (i.e., the value of its total assets
less total liabilities) by its total number of Shares outstanding.
Expenses and fees are accrued daily and taken into account for
purposes of determining NAV.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UltraShort Funds
    Certain Funds seek daily investment results, before fees and
expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse

(-200%) of the daily performance of the Underlying Indexes
(``UltraShort Funds''). If such a Fund is successful in meeting its
objective, the NAV of the corresponding Shares should increase
approximately twice as much (on a percentage basis) as the respective
Underlying Index loses when the prices of the securities in the
Underlying Index decline on a given day, or should decrease
approximately twice as much as the respective Underlying Index gains
when such prices rise on a given day. The UltraShort Funds are: (5)
UltraShort MSCI Emerging Markets ProShares; (6) UltraShort MSCI Japan
ProShares; (7) UltraShort MSCI EAFE ProShares; and (8) UltraShort FTSE/
Xinhua China 25 ProShares.
    Access to the current portfolio composition of each Fund is
currently available through the Trust's Web site (http://www.proshares.com
). \6\The Underlying Indexes are identified in the

filing authorizing Amex to list and trade the Funds (``Original
Filing'').\7\ The Original Filing states that Amex would disseminate
for each Fund on a daily basis by means of Consolidated Tape
Association (``CTA'') and CQ High Speed Lines information with respect
to an Indicative Intra-Day Value (``IIV''), quotations for and last-
sale information concerning the Shares, the recent NAV, the number of
Shares outstanding, and the estimated cash amount and total cash amount
per Creation Unit. Amex will make available on its Web site the daily
trading volume, closing price, NAV, and final dividend amounts, if any,
to be paid for each Fund. The NAV of each Fund is calculated and
determined each business day at the close of regular trading, typically
4 p.m. Eastern Time (``ET''). The NAV would be calculated and
disseminated at the same time to all market participants.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\The Trust's Web site is publicly accessible at no charge and
contains the following information for each Fund's Shares: (1) The
prior business day's closing NAV, the reported closing price, and a
calculation of the premium or discount of such price in relation to
the closing NAV; (2) data for a period covering at least the current
and three immediately preceding calendar quarters (or the life of a
Fund, if shorter) indicating how frequently each Fund's Shares
traded at a premium or discount to NAV based on the daily closing
price and the closing NAV, and the magnitude of such premiums and
discounts; (3) its prospectus and product description; and (4) other
quantitative information such as daily trading volume. The
prospectus and/or product description for each Fund informs
investors that the Trust's Web site has information about the
premiums and discounts at which the Fund's Shares have traded.
    \7\ See supra note 3.
    \8\ The Original Filing states that if the IIV is not
disseminated as required, Amex would halt trading in the Shares of
the Funds. If Amex halts trading for this reason, then ISE would
halt trading in the Shares immediately, as set forth in ISE Rule
2123(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Original Filing states that the daily closing index value and
the percentage change in the daily closing index value for each
Underlying Index would be publicly available on various Web sites such
as http://www.bloomberg.com. The Original Filing further states that

data regarding each Underlying Index is also available from the
respective index provider to subscribers. According to the Original
Filing, several independent data vendors package and disseminate index
data in various value-added formats.
    The Original Filing states that the value of each Underlying Index
is updated intra-day on a real-time basis as its individual component
securities change in price, and the intra-day value of each Underlying
Index is disseminated at least every 15 seconds throughout Amex's
trading day by Amex or another organization authorized by the relevant
Underlying Index provider. The IIV is updated to reflect changes in
currency exchange rates and is published via the facilities of the CTA
on a 15-second delayed basis during ISE's trading hours.
    To provide updated information relating to each Fund for use by
investors, professionals, and persons wishing to create or redeem
Shares, Amex disseminates through the facilities of the CTA and CQ High
Speed Lines information: (1) Continuously throughout Amex's trading
day, the market value of a Share; and (2) at least every 15 seconds
throughout Amex's trading day, the IIV as calculated by Amex.
    Shares would trade on ISE from 9:30 a.m. ET until 4:15 p.m. ET. ISE
will halt trading in the Shares of a Fund under the conditions
specified in ISE Rules 702, 703, and 2123. The conditions for a halt
include a regulatory halt by the listing market. UTP trading in the
Shares will also be governed by provisions of ISE Rule 2123 relating to
temporary interruptions in the calculation or wide dissemination of the
IIV or the value of the Underlying Index. Additionally, ISE may cease
trading the Shares if other unusual conditions or circumstances exist
which, in the opinion of ISE, makes further dealings on ISE detrimental
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. ISE will also follow
any procedures with respect to trading halts as set forth in ISE rules.
    Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform
Equity Electronic Access Members (``Equity EAM'') in a Regulatory
Information Circular (``RIC'') of the special characteristics and risks
associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the RIC will discuss
the following: (1) The procedures for purchases and redemptions of
Shares in Creation Unit Aggregations (and that Shares are not
individually redeemable); (2) ISE Rule 2123(l), which imposes a duty of
due diligence on Equity EAMs to learn the essential facts relating to
every customer prior to trading the Shares; (3) how information
regarding the IIV is disseminated; (4) the requirement that Equity EAMs
deliver a written description to investors purchasing Shares prior to
or concurrently with a transaction; and (5) trading information. In
addition, the RIC will reference that the Fund is subject to various
fees and expenses described in the Registration Statement. The RIC will
also discuss any exemptive, no-action, and/or interpretive relief
granted by the Commission from the Act and rules under the Act. The RIC
will also disclose that the NAV for the Shares will be calculated after
4 p.m. ET each trading day.
    The Exchange intends to utilize its existing surveillance
procedures applicable to equities to monitor trading in the Shares. The
Exchange represents that these procedures are adequate to properly
monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all trading sessions and to
deter and detect violations of Exchange rules. The Exchange's current
trading surveillance focuses on detecting securities trading outside
their normal patterns. When such situations are detected, surveillance
analysis follows and investigations are opened, where appropriate, to
review the behavior of all relevant parties for all relevant trading
violations. Additionally, the Exchange may obtain information via the
Intermarket Surveillance Group (``ISG'') from other exchanges that are
members or affiliates of the ISG.\9\ The Exchange also has a general
policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information
by employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For a list of the current members and affiliate members of
ISG, see http://www.isgportal.com.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is
found in Section 6(b)(5), \10\ in that the proposed rule change is
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

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

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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

    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. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-ISE-2007-103 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2007-103. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 inspection and
copying 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 ISE. 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-ISE-2007-103 and should be
submitted on or before February 6, 2008.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
the Proposed Rule Change

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\11\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\12\ which
requires that an exchange have rules designed, among other things, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and in general to protect investors and the public
interest. The Commission believes that this proposal should benefit
investors by increasing competition among markets that trade the
Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ In approving this rule change, the Commission notes that it
has considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent
with Section 12(f) of the Act,\13\ which permits an exchange to trade,
pursuant to UTP, a security that is listed and registered on another
exchange.\14\ The Commission notes that it previously approved the
listing and trading of the Shares on Amex.\15\ The Commission also
finds that the proposal is consistent with Rule 12f-5 under the
Act,\16\ which provides that an exchange shall not extend UTP to a
security unless the exchange has in effect a rule or rules providing
for transactions in the class or type of security to which the exchange
extends UTP. The Exchange has represented that it meets this
requirement because it deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus
rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing
rules governing the trading of equity securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78l(f).
    \14\ Section 12(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 78l(a), generally
prohibits a broker-dealer from trading a security on a national
securities exchange unless the security is registered on that
exchange pursuant to Section 12 of the Act. Section 12(f) of the Act
excludes from this restriction trading in any security to which an
exchange ``extends UTP.'' When an exchange extends UTP to a
security, it allows its members to trade the security as if it were
listed and registered on the exchange even though it is not so
listed and registered.
    \15\ See supra note 3.
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.12f-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the Commission believes that the proposal is consistent
with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act,\17\ which sets forth
Congress' finding that it is in the public interest and appropriate for
the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly
markets to assure the availability to brokers, dealers, and investors
of information with respect to quotations for and transactions in
securities. Quotations for and last-sale information regarding the
Shares are disseminated continuously throughout ISE's trading day
through the facilities of the CTA. Furthermore, the IIV, updated to
reflect changes in currency exchange rates, is calculated by Amex and
published via the facilities of the CTA and the Consolidated Quotation
System on a 15-second delayed basis throughout ISE's trading hours. As
mentioned above, Amex's Web site provides information relating to the
value of the Shares such as the prior business day's closing NAV, the
reported closing price, and the daily trading volume. The Commission
also believes that the Exchange's trading halt rules are reasonably
designed to prevent trading in the Shares when transparency is
impaired. If the listing market halts trading when the IIV is not being
calculated or disseminated, the Exchange would halt trading in the
Shares pursuant to ISE Rule 2123(e). The Exchange has represented that
it would follow the procedures with respect to trading halts set forth
in ISE Rules 702, 703, and 2123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that, if the Shares should be delisted by the
listing exchange, the Exchange would no longer have authority to trade
the Shares pursuant to this order.
    In support of this proposal, the Exchange has made the following
representations:
    1. The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are
adequate to properly monitor Exchange trading of the Shares in all
trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules.
    2. Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange would inform
EAMs in a RIC of the special characteristics and risks associated with
trading the Shares.

    3. ISE would require its members to deliver a prospectus or product
description to investors purchasing the Shares prior to or concurrently
with a transaction in the Shares.
    This approval order is based on these representations.
    The Commission finds good cause for approving this proposal before
the 30th day after the publication of notice thereof in the Federal
Register. As noted previously, the Commission previously found that the
listing and trading of the Shares on Amex is consistent with the Act.
Additionally, the Commission has approved the trading of the Shares
pursuant to UTP on another national securities exchange.\18\ The
Commission presently is not aware of any regulatory issue that should
cause it to revisit those findings or would preclude the trading of the
Shares on the Exchange pursuant to UTP. Therefore, accelerating
approval of this proposal should benefit investors by creating, without
undue delay, additional competition in the market for the Shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56601 (October 2,
2007), 72 FR 51625 (October 10, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2007-79).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\19\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2007-103), as modified
by Amendment No. 1 thereto, be, and it hereby is, approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 [FR Doc. E8-646 Filed 1-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14105-14106]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06207]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-102-000]

Rockies Express Pipeline LLC: Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 2, 2015, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC,
(Rockies Express) filed an application with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act
(NGA) requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity
authorizing the operation as section 7(c) jurisdictional facilities
certain pipeline assets, located in Noble and Monroe Counties, Ohio,
that heretofore have been constructed and operated solely for the
purpose of providing transportation services permitted under section
311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act, all as more completely described in
the Application. This filing is available for review at the Commission
in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web
site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number
field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding the application should be directed to David
Haag, Vice President, Regulatory, Rockies Express Pipeline LLC, 370 Van
Gordon Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80228-8304, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Specifically, the facilities for which Rockies Express is
requesting NGA section 7(c) authority were the subject of two advance
notification filings made by Rockies Express on August 26, 2013 in
Docket No. CP13-539-000 (Seneca Lateral Project) and on April 18, 2014
in Docket No. CP14-194-000 (Seneca Compressor Expansion Project). The
facilities consist of: (1) Approximately 14.7 miles of 24-inch lateral
pipeline extending from an interconnect with MarkWest Energy Partners,
L.P. Seneca Processing Plant to Rockies Express' mainline; (2)
measurement facilities; and (3) 15,980 horsepower of booster
compression. Rockies Express proposes incremental firm and
interruptible transportation recourse rates based on the cost of the
facilities of $135,950,429.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be

placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 2, 2015.

    Dated: March 12, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06207 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P