[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34280-34282]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0488; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-002-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited
(Bell) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bell Model 206B and 206L helicopters. This proposed AD would
require installing a placard beneath the engine power dual tachometer
and revising the operating limitations section of the rotorcraft flight
manual (RFM). This proposed AD is prompted by several incidents of
third stage engine turbine wheel failures, which were caused by
excessive vibrations at certain engine speeds during steady-state
operations. The proposed actions are intended to alert pilots to avoid
certain engine speeds during steady-state operations, prevent failure
of the third stage engine turbine, engine power loss, and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 6, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir,
Mirabel, Quebec J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(450) 433-0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may
review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort
Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    Transport Canada (TC), which is the aviation authority for Canada,
has issued TC AD No. CF-2007-13R2, dated November 10, 2009, to correct
an unsafe condition for certain Model 206B (including those converted
from Model 206A) and 206L helicopters. TC advises of several failures
of third stage turbine wheels used in Rolls Royce 250-C20 engines.
According to TC, Rolls Royce has determined that detrimental vibrations
can occur within a particular range of turbine speeds, and may be a
contributing factor to these failures. Bell has revised the operating
limitations of the RFM and provided a corresponding decal on the
instrument panel to inform pilots to avoid steady-state operations
between 75% and 88% turbine speeds.
    The TC AD requires amending the RFMs, advising pilots of the
change, and installing a decal as described in Bell Alert Service
Bulletin (ASB) No. 206-07-115, Revision C, dated February 4, 2009, for
Model 206B helicopters (ASB 206-07-115) and Bell ASB No. 206L-07-146,
Revision B, dated March 3, 2009, for Model 206L helicopters (ASB 206L-
07-146).

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Canada, TC, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information
and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Related Service Information

    Bell has issued ASB 206-07-115 and ASB 206L-07-146, which contain
procedures for installing a placard on the instrument panel below the
main rotor RPM (Nr)/power turbine RPM (N2) dual tachometer and for
inserting the RFM changes into the flight manual.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require installing a placard on the
instrument panel below the NR/N2 dual tachometer and revising the
Operating Limitations sections of the Model 206B and 206L RFMs to limit
steady-state operations between speeds of 75% and 88%.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the TC AD

    The TC AD requires compliance within 10 calendar days, the proposed
AD would require compliance within 30 days.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 970 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. Based on an average labor rate of $85 per hour, we
estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to
comply with this AD. Amending the RFM would require about 0.5 work-
hours, for a cost per helicopter of about $43 and a cost to U.S.
operators of $41,710. Installing the decal would require about 0.2
work-hours and required parts would cost $20, for a cost per helicopter
of $37 and a cost to U.S. operators of $35,890. Based on these
estimates, the total cost of this proposed AD would be $80 per
helicopter and $77,600 for the U.S. operator fleet.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited (BELL): Docket No. FAA-2013-
0488; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-002-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to the following helicopters, certificated in
any category:
    (1) Bell Model 206B, serial number (S/N) 004 through 4675,
including helicopters converted from Model 206A; and
    (2) Bell Model 206L, S/N 45001 through 45153, and 46601 through
46617.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a third stage turbine
vibration, which could result in turbine failure, engine power loss,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 6, 2013.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Within 30 days:
    (1) For Model 206B helicopters:
    (i) Revise the Operating Limitations section of the Model 206B
Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) by inserting Section 1, Operating
Limitations, page 1-2A, of Bell BHT-206B-FM-1, revision B-50, dated
December 8, 2008.
    (ii) Remove placard part number (P/N) 230-075-213-121, if
installed.
    (iii) Install placard P/N 230-075-213-125, or equivalent, on the
instrument panel directly below the dual tachometer.
    (2) For Model 206L helicopters:
    (i) Revise the Operating Limitations section of the Model 206L
RFM by inserting Section 1, Operating Limitations, page 1-4B, of
Bell BHT-206L-FM-1, revision 28, dated December 8, 2008.
    (ii) Remove placard P/N 230-075-213-123, if installed.
    (ii) Install placard P/N 230-075-213-127, or equivalent, on the
instrument panel below the dual tachometer.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Chinh Vuong, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) Bell Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 206-07-115, Revision
C, dated February 4, 2009, and Bell ASB No. 206L-07-146, Revision B,
dated March 3, 2009, which are not incorporated by reference,
contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For
service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Helicopter
Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec
J7J1R4; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (450) 433-
0272; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a
copy of the service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD
No. CF-2007-13R2, dated December 9, 2009.

 (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 7250: Turbine
Section.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on May 29, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-13481 Filed 6-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 236 (Wednesday, December 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76607-76609]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30944]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76553; File No. SR-NYSE-2015-59]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Rule 107C To Distinguish Between Retail Orders Routed on
Behalf of Other Broker-Dealers and Retail Orders That Are Routed on
Behalf of Introduced Retail Accounts That Are Carried on a Fully
Disclosed Basis

December 3, 2015.
    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 November 19, 2015, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 107C (``Retail Liquidity
Program'') to distinguish between retail orders routed on behalf of
other broker-dealers and retail orders that are routed on behalf of
introduced retail accounts that are carried on a fully disclosed basis.
The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 107C, which governs the
Exchange's Retail Liquidity Program (the ``Program''), to distinguish
between orders routed on behalf of other broker-dealers and orders
routed on behalf of introduced retail accounts that are carried on a
fully disclosed basis, as further described below.
    The Exchange established the Program in an attempt to attract
retail order flow to the Exchange, primarily by offering pricing
incentives. Under the Program, Retail Member Organizations \3\
(``RMOs'') are permitted to submit Retail Orders,\4\ and receive
rebates for added liquidity that are higher than the exchanges [sic]
standard rebates for added liquidity.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As defined in Rule 107C(a)(2), a Retail Member Organization
is a member organization (or division thereof) that has been
approved by the Exchange under Rule 107C to submit Retail Orders.
    \4\ As defined in Rule 107C(a)(3), a Retail Order is an agency
order or a riskless principal order that meets the criteria of FINRA
Rule 5320.03 that originates from a natural person and is submitted
to the Exchange by a Retail Member Organization, provided that no
change is made to the terms of the order with respect to price or
side of market and the order does not originate from a trading
algorithm or any other computerized methodology.
    \5\ See the Exchange's Price List, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 107C(b)(1) currently states that ``[t]o qualify as a Retail
Member Organization, a member organization must conduct a retail
business or handle retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer.''
Rather than stating that one way to qualify as an RMO is to ``handle''
retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer, the Exchange proposes
to state that a member organization may qualify as an RMO if it
``routes'' retail orders on behalf of another broker-dealer. The
Exchange believes that providing routing services on behalf of other
broker-dealers with retail order flow better represents the function
that member organizations would be performing on behalf of other
broker-dealers. Thus, the Exchange believes that the description would
be more transparent if it referred to routing services provided to
another broker-dealer with retail customers. The Exchange also proposes
to distinguish such routing services on behalf of another broker-dealer
from services provided by broker-dealers that carry retail customer
accounts on a fully disclosed basis, as described below.

    As background with respect to the proposed change, the Exchange
first would like to describe the terms ``introducing broker'',
``carrying firm'' or ``carrying broker-dealer'', and ``fully
disclosed,'' as such terms are commonly used in the securities
industry. An ``introducing'' broker-dealer is ``one that has a
contractual arrangement with another firm, known as the carrying or
clearing firm, under which the carrying firm agrees to perform certain
services for the introducing firm. Usually, the introducing firm
submits its customer accounts and customer orders to the carrying firm,
which executes the orders and carries the account. The carrying firm's
duties include the proper disposition of the customer funds and
securities after the trade date, the custody of customer securities and
funds, and the recordkeeping associated with carrying customer
accounts.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 31511 (Nov. 24,
1992), 57 FR 56973 (December 2, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, a ``fully disclosed'' introducing arrangement is
``distinguished from an omnibus clearing arrangement where the clearing
firm maintains one account for all the customer transactions of the
introducing firm. In an omnibus relationship, the clearing firm does
not know the identity of the customers of the introducing firm. In a
fully disclosed clearing arrangement, the clearing firm knows the
names, addresses, securities positions and other relevant data as to
each customer.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to a broker-dealer that is routing on behalf of
another broker-dealer, the Exchange does not believe that the routing
broker-dealer has sufficient information to assess whether orders are
truly retail in nature, and thus, requires an RMO routing on behalf of
other broker-dealers to maintain additional supervisory procedures and
obtain annual attestations, as described below, in order to submit
Retail Orders to the Exchange. In contrast, however, if a member
organization is carrying a customer account on a fully disclosed basis,
then such carrying broker-dealer is required to perform certain
diligence regarding such account that the Exchange believes is
sufficient to assess whether a customer is a retail customer in order
to submit orders on behalf of such a customer to the Exchange as a
Retail Order. The carrying broker of an account typically handles
orders from its retail customers that are ``introduced'' by an
introducing broker. However, as noted above, in contrast to a typical
routing relationship on behalf of another broker-dealer, a carrying
broker obtains a significant level of information regarding each
customer introduced by the introducing broker. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to state in Rule 107C(b)(1) that for purposes of Rule
107C, ``conducting a retail business includes carrying retail customer
accounts on a fully disclosed basis.''
    Rule 107C(b)(6) currently states, in part, that ``[i]f a Retail
Member Organization represents Retail Orders from another broker-dealer
customer, the Retail Member Organization's supervisory procedures must
be reasonably designed to assure that the orders it receives from such
broker-dealer customer that it designates as Retail Orders meet the
definition of a Retail Order.'' This includes obtaining attestations
from the other broker-dealers for whom the RMO routes. In addition to
the proposed changes to Rule 107C(b)(1) described above, the Exchange
proposes to modify the language of Rule 107C(b)(6) to again distinguish
between an RMO that conducts a retail business because it carries
accounts on a fully disclosed basis from an RMO that routes orders on
behalf of another broker-dealer. As proposed, the additional annual
written representations requirements of Rule 107C(b)(6) would apply to
an RMO that does not itself conduct a retail business but routes Retail
Orders on behalf of other broker-dealers. In turn, such additional
written representation requirements of Rule 107C(b)(6) would not apply
to an RMO that carries retail customer accounts on a fully disclosed
basis. In connection with this change, the Exchange is proposing
various edits to the existing rule text so that the reference is
consistently to ``other broker-dealers'' rather than ``broker-dealer
customers.''
    The Exchange believes that allowing an RMO that carries retail
customer accounts on a fully disclosed basis to submit Retail Orders to
the Exchange without obtaining attestations from broker-dealers that
might introduce such accounts will encourage participation in the
Program. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the carrying broker
has sufficient information to itself confirm that orders are Retail
Orders without such attestations. The Exchange still believes it is
necessary to require the attestation by broker-dealers that route
Retail Orders on behalf of other broker-dealers, because, in contrast,
such broker-dealers typically do not have a relationship with the
retail customer and would not be in position to confirm that such
customers are in fact retail customers.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating
transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices because it
highlights the parties for whom additional procedures are required
because they do not maintain relationships with the end customer (i.e.,
routing brokers) and still requires the RMO to follow such procedures
to ensure that such orders qualify as Retail Orders. As proposed,
however, an RMO would not be required to follow such procedures,
including obtaining annual attestations, to the extent such RMO
actually knows the end customer and carries the account of such
customer and thus can itself confirm that the orders qualify as Retail
Orders.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system because it will allow RMOs that carry retail
customer accounts to participate in the Program without imposing
additional attestation requirements that the Exchange did not initially
intend to impose upon them. By removing impediments to participation in
the Program, the proposed change would permit expanded access of retail
customers to the Program.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that
the amendment, by increasing the level of participation in the Program,
will increase the level of competition around retail executions. The
Exchange believes that the transparency and competitiveness of
operating a program such as the Program on an exchange market would

result in better prices for retail investors and benefits retail
investors by expanding the capabilities of Exchanges to encompass
practices currently allowed on non-exchange venues.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\15\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposed
rule change may become operative immediately.\16\ In requesting the
waiver, the Exchange stated its belief that having harmonized
requirements for RMOs across multiple exchanges with a retail program
would promote competition by enabling member organizations to operate
as RMOs on multiple exchanges in the same manner. The Commission notes
that, to become an RMO, a member organization would still be required
under Exchange Rule 107C(b)(2)(C) to submit an attestation to the
Exchange that substantially all orders submitted as Retail Orders would
qualify as such under Exchange Rule 107C. Rather, the proposal would
change when an RMO must obtain the annual written representation from
other broker-dealers that send Retail Orders to the RMO. The Commission
finds that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposal operative upon filing.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \16\ The Commission notes that another national securities
exchange has a similar rule for its Retail Member Organizations and
that the proposal does not raise any novel regulatory issues. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76207 (October 21, 2015), 80 FR
65824 (October 27, 2015) (SR-BYX-2015-45).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2015-59 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-59. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2015-59,
and should be submitted on or before December 30, 2015.

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

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (59).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30944 Filed 12-8-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


DATE: 	May 2023

SUBJECT: 	HEM Model Output Files for the Neoprene Production Source Category

FROM: 	Matt Woody
	U.S. EPA, OAQPS

TO: 	EPA Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0730

We are placing these files in the docket for this rulemaking because they have been provided to Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC in response to a Request for Production in United States of America v. Denka Performance Elastomer, LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-00735-CJB-MBN (E.D. La.). This information is already contained in this docket in the form of input files, but we are providing the output files as well. Attached to this memo are the model output files for the Neoprene Production Source Category Acute Emissions. Other model output files available in the docket include:
Neoprene Production Source Category Actual Baseline Emissions
Neoprene Production Source Category Actual Post-Control Emissions
Neoprene Production Source Category Whole Facility Baseline Emissions
Neoprene Production Source Category Whole Facility Post-Control Emissions


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10495-10499]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03530]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88230; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2020-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE
Arca Equities Fees and Charges and the NYSE Arca Options Fees and
Charges Related to Co-Location Services

February 18, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on February 4, 2020, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Fees and
Charges (the ``Equities Fee Schedule'') and the NYSE Arca Options Fees
and Charges (the ``Options Fee Schedule'' and, together with the
Equities Fee Schedule, the ``Fee Schedules'') related to co-location
services to (a) update the text of General Note 1 to correct a
typographical error, make a non-substantive change, and to include
reference to NYSE Chicago, Inc. (``NYSE Chicago'') and (b) make non-
substantive changes to the text of General Note 4. The proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
Overview
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedules related to co-
location \4\

services to (a) update the text of General Note 1 to include reference
to NYSE Chicago, and (b) make non-substantive changes to the text of
General Note 4. General Note 1 and General Note 4 appear in both the
Equities Fee Schedule and the Options Fee Schedule, and the Exchange
proposes to amend them in both locations, as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') in 2010. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
63275 (November 8, 2010), 75 FR 70048 (November 16, 2010) (SR-
NYSEArca-2010-100). The Exchange operates a data center in Mahwah,
New Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it provides co-location
services to Users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Change to General Note 1
    General Note 1 currently provides that a User \5\ that incurs co-
location fees for a particular co-location service would not be subject
to co-location fees for the same co-location service charged by the New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE American LLC (``NYSE
American''), and NYSE National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' and together,
the ``Affiliate SROs'').\6\ General Note 1 currently does not include
NYSE Chicago among the Affiliate SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' shall mean any market participant that requests to receive
co-location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76010 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60197
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSEArca-2015-82).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70173 (August 13,
2013), 78 FR 50459 (August 19, 2013) (SR-NYSEArca-2013-80).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to make three changes to the version of
General Note 1 that currently appears in the Equities Fee Schedule.
First, the current version of General Note 1 in the Equities Fee
Schedule contains a typographical error, in that it refers to the
Equities Fee Schedule instead of the Options Fee Schedule. The Exchange
proposes to correct that error by substituting the word ``Options'' for
``Equities.'' This is not a substantive change, and will have no effect
on the Exchange's actual billing practices for co-location services; it
simply clarifies that the Exchange will not charge a User co-location
fees for any co-location service already being charged to the User
under the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule.
    Second, the current General Note 1 lists the Exchange's affiliate,
NYSE, in the middle of the list of exchanges, instead of at the start
of the list, as is the Exchange's general practice. The Exchange
proposes to reorder the list of affiliate exchanges to put NYSE at the
start of the list.
    Third, in late 2019, NYSE Chicago filed rule changes with the
Commission establishing its co-location services.\7\ The Exchange now
proposes to add NYSE Chicago to General Note 1 of the Equities Fee
Schedule. All three changes are indicated below (deletions bracketed,
additions underlined):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87408 (October 28,
2019), 84 FR 58778 (November 1, 2019) (SR-NYSECHX-2019-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24FE20.000

    The Exchange also proposes to reorder the list of exchanges and to
add NYSE Chicago to General Note 1 in the Options Fee Schedule, as
follows (deletions bracketed, additions underlined):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24FE20.001

    By including the proposed reference to NYSE Chicago, General Note 1
would provide that the fees a User pays for co-location services would
not depend on whether the User connects to none, one, some, or all of
the Exchange, the Affiliate SROs, and NYSE Chicago.
    The proposed change to add NYSE Chicago to General Note 1 would be
consistent with General Note 1 under ``Co-location'' in the Fee
Schedule of NYSE Chicago (the ``NYSE Chicago Fee Schedule''), which
similarly provides that a User that incurs fees for co-location
services under that fee schedule is not subject to fees for the same
co-location services charged by the Exchange, NYSE, NYSE American, or
NYSE National.
Proposed Changes to General Note 4
    General Note 4 currently provides that, when a User purchases
access to the Liquidity Center Network (``LCN'') or the internet
protocol (``IP'') network, the two local area networks available in the
data center,\8\ a User would receive (a) the ability to access the
trading and execution systems of the Exchange and Affiliate SROs
(``Exchange Systems'') as well as of Global OTC (the ``Global OTC
System'') and (b) connectivity to any of the listed data products
(``Included Data Products'') that it selects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79729 (January 4,
2017), 82 FR 3061 (January 10, 2017) (SR-NYSEArca-2016-172).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to make three non-substantive changes to
the text of the first sentence of General Note 4. First, the Exchange
proposes to delete the full name of ``NYSE Chicago, Inc.'' from General
Note 4, since that term would be defined earlier in proposed General
Note 1 as ``NYSE Chicago.'' Second, the Exchange proposes to delete the
quotation marks around the term ``Global OTC System,'' because the
other General Notes generally do not include quotation marks around
defined terms. Third, the Exchange proposes to add a serial comma after
the term ``NYSE National'' near the end of the first sentence of
General Note 4, as follows (additions underlined, deletions in
brackets):
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN24FE20.002

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C
    These changes are typographical in nature and are not intended to
change the substance or meaning of the text of the Fee Schedules.
    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or related fees, and the
Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users would have in
complying with the proposed change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Each Affiliate SRO has submitted substantially the same
proposed rule change to propose the changes described herein. See
SR-NYSE-2020-09, SR-NYSEAmer-2020-08, and SR-NYSENAT-2020-06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\10\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(5) of the Act,\11\ in particular, because
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to, and
perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market
system and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest
and because it is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change to add NYSE Chicago
to General Note 1 would remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, protect investors and the public interest because the
amendments would update General Note 1 to reflect NYSE Chicago's
provision of co-location services. By including the proposed reference
to NYSE Chicago, General Note 1 would clarify that NYSE Chicago is
included among the affiliates of the Exchange referenced in the
statement that a User paying for co-location services will not be
subject to co-location fees for the same co-location services charged
by any of the Exchange's affiliates. The proposed change would make the
Fee Schedules consistent with General Note 1 under ``Co-location'' in
the Fee Schedule of NYSE Chicago, alleviating any possible market
participant confusion.
    The Exchange believes that the other changes to General Note 1 and
the non-substantive changes to General Note 4 would remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the amendments would clarify Exchange rules,
making the Fee Schedules easier to read and understand and alleviating
any possible market participant confusion caused by the current text of
the note.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\12\ in particular, because
it provides for the

equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. This is true because the proposed amendments to General Note 1
would simply clarify that a User that incurs co-location fees for a
particular co-location service pursuant to the Fee Schedules will not
be subject to co-location fees for the same co-location services
charged by any of the Exchange's affiliates, including NYSE Chicago.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to General Note
1 provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers, and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers because they clarify that the Exchange,
NYSE Chicago, and the other Affiliate SROs do not receive the proceeds
from multiple fees despite providing a service only once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because, in addition to the
use of co-location services being completely voluntary, they are
available to all Users on an equal basis (i.e., the same range of
products and services are available to all Users).
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would not
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule
change would not change the services and fees to which market
participants already have access. Rather, it seeks simply to clarify
that a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service pursuant to the Fee Schedules will not be subject to co-
location fees for the same co-location services charged by any of the
Exchange's affiliates, including NYSE Chicago.
    In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed non-
substantive changes to General Note 4 would not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because it would have no impact on pricing or
existing services. Rather, the changes would clarify Exchange rules,
making the Fee Schedules easier to understand and alleviating any
possible market participant confusion caused by the current text of the
note.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of its
intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\17\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because NYSE Chicago
offers co-location services, and the waiver of the operative delay
would alleviate the possibility of confusion among members, the public,
and the Commission that could be caused by inconsistencies between the
Exchange's Fee Schedules and the NYSE Chicago Fee Schedule. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \19\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2020-13 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2020-13. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the

proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than
those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting
comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal
identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2020-13 and should
be submitted on or before March 16, 2020.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03530 Filed 2-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 32 (Thursday, February 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 9296]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0012]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the
public notice that by a document dated January 18, 2012, the Union
Pacific Railroad (UP) has petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or
modification of a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket
Number FRA-2012-0012.
    UP seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of the automatic
block signal (ABS) system between Control Point (CP) Troost and Neff
Yard on UP's KC Metro Subdivision, at approximately Milepost 281. UP's
plans call for the discontinuance of ABS Signals Numbers 2805L, 2805R,
2806L, and 2806R, on Track 112 and Main 2; as well as a switch circuit
controller on a hand-operated switch on Track 112.
    The reason given is that the ABS system is not needed for efficient
and safe operation of trains in this area.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received by April 2, 2012 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and 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 in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 9, 2012.
Ron Hynes,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-3679 Filed 2-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 95 (Friday, May 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28510-28512]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11222]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0335; FRL-9910-28]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted emergency exemptions under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted during
the period October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014 to control unforeseen pest
outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lois Rossi, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:

 Crop production (NAICS code 111).
 Animal production (NAICS code 112).
 Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
 Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0335, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and
Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form:
Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.
    Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide
when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called
emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are
of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are emergency
exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are
rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized
and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, and the duration
of the exemption.

III. Emergency Exemptions

A. U.S. States and Territories

Alabama
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; February 27, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Arkansas
State Plant Board
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of anthraquinone on rice
seed to repel blackbirds; February 28, 2014 to June 1, 2014.
California
Department of Environmental Protection
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of etofenprox in
mushroom houses to control phorid and sciarid flies; February 7, 2014
to February 7, 2015.

    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of boscalid for post
harvest use on Belgian endive to control the fungal pathogen
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum; November 1, 2014 to February 15, 2014
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 10, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Delaware
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 10, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole in
mushroom houses to control trichoderma green mold; January 17, 2014 to
January 17, 2015.
Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of propiconazole on
avocado to control laurel wilt; March 27, 2014 to March 27, 2017.
Georgia
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; February 27, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of fluridone in cotton
to control palmer amaranth; February 28, 2014 to August 31, 2014.
Idaho
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 31, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Iowa
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 23, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Illinois
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; January 17, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Kansas
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; February 27, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Louisiana
Department of Agriculture and Forestry
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of anthraquinone on rice
seed to repel blackbirds; February 20, 2014 to June 1, 2014.
Maryland
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole in
mushroom houses to control trichoderma green mold; January 17, 2014 to
January 17, 2015.
Michigan
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of kasugamycin on apples
to control fire blight; March 28, 2014 to May 31, 2014. The applicant
proposed the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by
EPA; therefore, a Notice of Receipt was published in the Federal
Register on February 24, 2014 (79 FR 10142) (FRL 9906-18). Kasugamycin
is needed to control streptomycin-resistant strains of Erwinia
amylovora, the causal pathogen of fire blight, due to the lack of
available alternatives and effective control practices. Without the use
of kasugamycin and if weather conditions are present which favor a fire
blight epidemic, it is likely that Michigan apple growers could suffer
yield losses of 50% or more.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids inbeehives to control varroa mite; February 27, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Minnesota
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids in beehives to control varroa mite; February 27, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
New York
Department of Environmental Conservation
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids inbeehives to control varroa mite; March 12, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
North Carolina
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of fluridone in cotton
to control palmer amaranth; February 28, 2014 to August 31, 2014.
Oregon
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of fenoxaprop-p-ethyl in
grasses grown for seed to control grassy weeds; January 17, 2014 to
September 15, 2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids inbeehives to control varroa mite; February 27, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of thiabendazole in
mushroom houses to control trichoderma green mold; January 17, 2014 to
January 17, 2015.
South Carolina
Department of Pesticide Regulation
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of fluridone in cotton
to control palmer amaranth; February 28, 2014 to August 31, 2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids inbeehives to control varroa mite; March 12, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Tennessee
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of fluridone in cotton
to control palmer amaranth; February 28, 2014 to August 31, 2014.
Texas
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of flutriafol on cotton
to control cotton root rot; effective date February 1, 2014 to June 30,
2014.
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids inbeehives to control varroa mite; February 27, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Washington
State Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids inbeehives to control varroa mite; January 1, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.

Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids inbeehives to control varroa mite; March 12, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.
Wyoming
Department of Agriculture
    Specific exemption: EPA authorized the use of potassium salt of hop
beta acids inbeehives to control varroa mite; February 27, 2014 to
December 31, 2014.

B. Federal Departments and Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspector Service
    Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of methyl bromide on
post-harvest unlabeled imported/domestic commodities to prevent the
introduction/spread of any new or recently introduced foreign pest(s)
to any U.S. geographical location; March 1, 2014 to March 1, 2017.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: May 9, 2014.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-11222 Filed 5-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 116 (Wednesday, June 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34763-34765]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14826]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75152; File No. SR-MIAX-2015-19)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange
Rule 515

June 11, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On April 13, 2015, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 515
regarding the functionality of Customer Cross Order and Qualified
Contingent Cross Order types. The proposed rule change was published
for comment in the Federal Register on April 30, 2015.\3\ The
Commission did not receive any comments on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74809 (April 24,
2015), 80 FR 24297 (SR-MIAX-2015-19) (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes amendments to MIAX Rule 515(h) to provide
that trading interest that is subject to an ongoing timer or auction
will maintain priority over a new incoming Customer Cross Order or
Qualified Contingent Cross Order. MIAX Rule 515(h)(1) provides that
Customer Cross Orders \4\ are automatically executed upon entry
provided that the execution (i) is at or between the best bid and offer
on the Exchange; (ii) is not at the same price as a Priority Customer
Order on the Exchange's Book; and (iii) will not trade at a price
inferior to the national best bid or offer (``NBBO''). Customer Cross
Orders are automatically canceled if they cannot be executed.\5\
Customer Cross Orders may only be entered in the minimum trading
increments applicable to the options class under Rule 510.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See MIAX Rules 515(h)(1) and 516(i). The Commission notes
that the Customer Cross Order type is currently not available for
use on the Exchange. See MIAX Options Regulatory Circular, RC-2015-
05.
    \5\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 24297.
    \6\ See MIAX Rule 515(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX Rule 515(h)(2) provides that Qualified Contingent Cross Orders
\7\ are automatically executed upon entry provided that the execution
(i) is not at the same price as a Priority Customer Order on the
Exchange's Book; and (ii) is at or between the NBBO. Qualified
Contingent Cross Orders are automatically canceled if they cannot be
executed.\8\ Qualified Contingent Cross Orders may only be entered in
the minimum trading increments applicable to the options class under
MIAX Rule 510.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See MIAX Rules 515(h)(2) and 516(j). See also MIAX Rule 516,
Interpretations and Policies .01. The Qualified Contingent Cross
Order is currently not deployed; however, the Exchange represents
that it intends to make the order type available pending Commission
approval of the proposed rule change. See Notice, supra note 3, at
24297.
    \8\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 24297.
    \9\ See MIAX Rule 515(h)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although neither the Customer Cross Order nor the Qualified
Contingent Cross Order may be executed at a price inferior to the NBBO,
the Exchange notes that there are situations at the Exchange during
which trading interest may exist in the Exchange's System that could be
executable at prices up to the NBBO but is not automatically executed
because the Exchange is either attempting to obtain additional price
improvement for the order or additional liquidity to trade against the
order on the Exchange. The Exchange states that it employs a variety of
timers and auctions to provide market participants with an opportunity
to obtain additional price improvement for their order or to access
additional liquidity to trade against the order on the Exchange.
Specifically, during the liquidity refresh pause or managed interest
process

pursuant to MIAX Rule 515(c),\10\ or a route timer pursuant to MIAX
Rule 529,\11\ the Exchange has trading interest that exists that may be
executable up to the NBBO but is displayed at a price one minimum price
increment away. In addition, during the price improvement mechanisms
such as the PRIME Auction or PRIME Solicitation Auction pursuant to
MIAX Rule 515A,\12\ the Exchange has trading interest that exists that
may be executable up to the NBBO but is not displayed.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The ``liquidity refresh pause'' is a process during which
the System will pause the market for a time period not to exceed one
second to allow additional orders or quotes refreshing the liquidity
at the MIAX best bid or offer (``MBBO'') to be received when at the
time of receipt or reevaluation of the initiating order by the
System: (A) either the initiating order is a limit order whose limit
price crosses the NBBO or the initiating order is a market order,
and the limit order or market order could only be partially
executed; (B) a Market Maker quote was all or part of the MBBO when
the MBBO is alone at the NBBO; and (C) and the Market Maker quote
was exhausted. See MIAX Rule 515(c)(2). The ``managed interest
process'' is a process for non-routable orders during which, if the
limit price locks or crosses the current opposite side NBBO, the
System will display the order one MPV away from the current opposite
side NBBO, and book the order at a price that will lock the current
opposite side NBBO. Should the NBBO price change to an inferior
price level, the order's Book price will continuously re-price to
lock the new NBBO and the managed order's displayed price will
continuously re-price one MPV away from the new NBBO until (i) the
order has traded to and including its limit price, (ii) the order
has traded to and including its price protection limit at which any
remaining contracts are cancelled, (iii) the order is fully executed
or (iv) the order is cancelled. See MIAX Rule 515(c)(1)(ii).
    \11\ See MIAX Rule 529. The ``route timer'' is a process for
those initiating Public Customer orders that are routable, but do
not meet the additional criteria for Immediate Routing, during which
the System will implement a route timer not to exceed one second, in
order to allow Market Makers and other participants an opportunity
to interact with the initiating order.
    \12\ The ``PRIME Auction'' is a process by which a Member may
electronically submit for execution (``auction'') an order it
represents as agent (``agency order'') against principal interest,
and/or an agency order against solicited interest. See MIAX Rule
515A(a). The ``PRIME Solicitation Mechanism'' is a process by which
a Member that represents agency orders of a size of 500 contracts or
more may electronically execute against solicited orders provided it
submits both the agency order and solicited orders for electronic
execution into the PRIME Solicitation Mechanism pursuant to Rule
515A. See MIAX Rule 515A(b).
    \13\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 24298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, the execution of a Customer Cross Order
or Qualified Contingent Cross Order that arrives during a timer or
auction at a potentially better price than the interest subject to the
timer or auction has the potential to cause confusion and perceived
disruption to market participants that are subject to the pre-existing
timers or auctions that may see executions occurring at better prices
than their trading interest. In addition, the Exchange believes that
the timers and auctions provide a valuable service to market
participants and that the use of these mechanisms, which provide market
participants with opportunities to obtain additional price improvement
for their orders or to access additional liquidity to trade against the
orders, should be promoted on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to
modify its Rules in order to maintain the priority of trading interest
subject to timers and auctions that are initiated prior to the arrival
of these specified order types. The proposed changes also would codify
existing functionality for Customer Cross Orders that is not currently
detailed in the Exchange's Rules.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See id. at 24297.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 515 to provide that
Customer Cross Orders and Qualified Contingent Cross Orders will be
rejected if there is a timer or price improvement auction in progress
when either of these orders is received. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to amend Rule 515(h)(1) to provide that if trading interest
exists on the MIAX Book that is subject to the liquidity refresh pause
or managed interest process pursuant to Rule 515(c), or a route timer
pursuant to Rule 529, when the Exchange receives a Customer Cross
Order, the System will reject the Customer Cross Order. The Exchange
also proposes to amend Rule 515(h)(1) to provide that if trading
interest exists that is subject to a PRIME Auction or PRIME
Solicitation Auction pursuant to Rule 515A when the Exchange receives a
Customer Cross Order, the System will reject the Customer Cross Order.
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 515(h)(2) to
provide that if trading interest exists on the MIAX Book that is
subject to the liquidity refresh pause or managed interest process
pursuant to Rule 515(c), or a route timer pursuant to Rule 529, when
the Exchange receives a Qualified Contingent Cross Order, the System
will reject the Qualified Contingent Cross Order. The Exchange also
proposes to amend Rule 515(h)(2) to provide that if trading interest
exists that is subject to a PRIME Auction or PRIME Solicitation Auction
pursuant to Rule 515A when the Exchange receives a Qualified Contingent
Cross Order, the System will reject the Qualified Contingent Cross
Order. The Exchange proposes no changes to the Customer Cross Order and
the Qualified Contingent Cross Order order types, and represents that
both order types will continue to be subject to the same requirements
as before.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See id. at 24298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act \16\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\17\ Specifically, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\18\
which requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules be
designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \17\ Additionally, in approving the proposed rule change, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange's
rules to provide that trading interest subject to ongoing timers and
auctions will maintain priority over a new incoming Customer Cross
Order or Qualified Contingent Cross Order. The proposed rule change
provides that a Customer Cross Order or Qualified Contingent Cross
Order will be rejected by the System if there is a timer or price
improvement auction in progress. In that instance, market participants
may choose to route their orders to other exchanges or resubmit their
Customer Cross Order or Qualified Contingent Cross Order to the
Exchange. The proposed rule change may eliminate potential confusion by
market participants as to the functionality of the Customer Cross Order
and Qualified Contingent Cross Order types. The proposed rule change
also provides clarity regarding the functionality of Customer Cross
Orders; the Commission notes that the proposed changes would codify
existing functionality for Customer Cross Orders that is not currently
detailed in the Exchange's Rules.\19\ Finally, the Commission
emphasizes that the proposed rule change does not change any of the
requirements for submitting a Customer Cross Order or Qualified
Contingent Cross Order set forth in Rule 515.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Notice, supra note 3, at 24297.
    \20\ See id. at 24298.

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

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-MIAX-2015-19) be,
and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-14826 Filed 6-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8860-8861]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3156]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0019; FRL-9337-4]

Pesticide Emergency Exemptions; Agency Decisions and State and
Federal Agency Crisis Declarations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has granted emergency exemptions under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use of
pesticides as listed in this notice. The exemptions were granted during
the period October 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 to control unforeseen
pest outbreaks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: See each emergency exemption for the
name of a contact person. The following information applies to all
contact persons: Team Leader, Emergency Response Team, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0019. Publicly available
docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of operation of this
Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

 II. Background

    EPA has granted emergency exemptions to the following State and
Federal agencies. The emergency exemptions may take the following form:
Crisis, public health, quarantine, or specific.
    Under FIFRA section 18, EPA can authorize the use of a pesticide
when emergency conditions exist. Authorizations (commonly called
emergency exemptions) are granted to State and Federal agencies and are
of four types:
    1. A ``specific exemption'' authorizes use of a pesticide against
specific pests on a limited acreage in a particular State. Most
emergency exemptions are specific exemptions.
    2. ``Quarantine'' and ``public health'' exemptions are emergency
exemptions issued for quarantine or public health purposes. These are
rarely requested.
    3. A ``crisis exemption'' is initiated by a State or Federal agency
(and is confirmed by EPA) when there is insufficient time to request
and obtain EPA permission for use of a pesticide in an emergency.
    EPA may deny an emergency exemption: If the State or Federal agency
cannot demonstrate that an emergency exists, if the use poses
unacceptable risks to the environment, or if EPA cannot reach a
conclusion that the proposed pesticide use is likely to result in ``a
reasonable certainty of no harm'' to human health, including exposure
of residues of the pesticide to infants and children.
    If the emergency use of the pesticide on a food or feed commodity
would result in pesticide chemical residues, EPA establishes a time-
limited tolerance meeting the ``reasonable certainty of no harm
standard'' of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).
    In this document: EPA identifies the State or Federal agency
granted the exemption, the type of exemption, the pesticide authorized
and the pests, the crop or use for which authorized, and the duration
of the exemption.

III. Emergency Exemptions

A. U.S. States and Territories

California
Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of boscalid on Belgian
endive to control sclerotinia (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum); December 1,
2011 to February 15, 2012. Contact: Stacey Groce.
    EPA authorized the use of pyraclostrobin on Belgian endive to
control sclerotinia (sclerotinia sclerotiorum); December 1, 2011 to
February 15, 2012. Contact: Stacey Groce.
    EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in beehives to control
varroa mite; December 22, 2011. Effective date; January 1, 2012 to
December 31, 2012. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Colorado
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; December 22, 2011. Effective date;
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Contact: Stacey Groce.
    EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on onions, dry bulb, to
control thrips; December 14, 2011 to September 30, 2012. Contact: Keri
Grinstead.
Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; December 22, 2011. Effective date;
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Idaho
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; December 22, 2011. Effective date;
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Contact: Stacey Groce.
Oregon
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in
beehives to control varroa mite; December 22, 2011. Effective date;
January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Contact: Stacey Groce.

Texas
Department of Agriculture
    Specific Exemptions: EPA authorized the use of spirotetramat on
onions, dry bulb, to control thrips; December 22, 2011 to September 30,
2012. Contact: Keri Grinstead.
Washington
Department of Agriculture
    EPA authorized the use of hop beta acids in beehives to control
varroa mite; December 22, 2011. Effective date; January 1, 2012 to
December 31, 2012. Contact: Stacey Groce.

B. Federal Departments and Agencies

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency Management
    Quarantine exemption: EPA authorized the use of chlorine dioxide
(gas), chlorine dioxide (liquid), ethylene oxide (gas), formaldehyde
(gas), hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid (liquid), hydrogen peroxide
(vapor), and sodium hypochlorite (5.25%-6%) (liquid) on interior and
exterior inanimate, non-food contact surfaces including buildings,
structures, vehicles, articles/items, personal protective equipment,
roads, sidewalks, and subway systems to inactivate Bacillus anthracis
(anthrax) spores; October 24, 2011 to October 24, 2014. Contact:
Princess Campbell.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: February 1, 2012.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-3156 Filed 2-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P