[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10923-10924]
[FR Doc No: 2023-03613]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2022-0050; OMB No. 1660-0005]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request; FEMA Inspection and Claims Forms

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: 30 Day notice of revision and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission seeks comments
concerning the collection of information related to the flood insurance
claims process and the housing inspection damage assessment process.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C St. SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address [email protected] or
Daniel Claire, Insurance Examiner, FEMA Resilience (Pertaining to
claims forms) at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected], contact:
Todd Milliron, Supervisory Program Specialist, FEMA Office of Response
and Recovery (Pertaining to housing inspection instruments) at (540)
686-3844 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pertaining to National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) Direct claim forms, Congress created the NFIP through
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA) (Title XIII of Pub. L.
90-448, 82 Stat. 476), codified at 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq. The NFIP
enables property owners in participating communities to purchase flood
insurance. Communities participate in the NFIP based on an agreement
between the community and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
If a community adopts and enforces a floodplain management ordinance to
reduce future flood risk to new construction in floodplains, FEMA makes
flood insurance available within the community as a financial
protection against flood losses. Accordingly, the NFIP is comprised of
three key activities: flood insurance, floodplain management, and flood
hazard mapping.
    A prospective policyholder may purchase an NFIP flood insurance
policy, known as a Standard Flood Insurance Policy (SFIP), either: (1)
directly from the Federal Government through a direct servicing agent
(referred to as ``NFIP Direct''), or (2) from a participating private
insurance company through the Write Your Own (WYO) Program. See 44 CFR
62.23-24. The SFIP is a single-peril (flood) policy that pays for
direct physical damage to insured property. There are three SFIP policy
forms (i.e., insurance contracts): (1) Dwelling Form, (2) General
Property Form, and (3) Residential Condominium Building Association
Policy (RCBAP) Form, which are published in FEMA's regulations. See 44
CFR 61.13; see also 44 CFR part 61, Appendices A(1), A(2), and A(3).
The SFIP sets out the terms and conditions of insurance. FEMA
establishes terms, rate structures, and premium costs of the SFIP. The
terms, coverage limits, and flood insurance premiums are the same
whether purchased from the NFIP Direct or the WYO Program. See 44 CFR
62.23(c), (h).
    All flood loss claims presented under the NFIP are paid directly
with U.S. Treasury funds, regardless of whether the policy is issued by
the NFIP Direct or by a WYO company. The information in the NFIP Direct
collection includes all the data necessary to adjudicate claims for
damages and provide SFIP benefits resulting from flood losses.
    In addition to the requirements of the NFIA, section 205 of the
Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance

Reform Act of 2004 (42 U.S.C. 4011) required FEMA to establish a claims
appeals process. See 44 CFR 62.20.
    Pertaining to housing inspections, also part of this collection,
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(Stafford Act), Public Law 93-288, as amended, is the legal basis for
FEMA to provide financial assistance and services to individuals
applying for disaster assistance benefits in the event of a Federally
declared disaster. Regulations in 44 CFR 206.110--Federal Assistance to
Individuals and Households implement the policy and procedures set
forth in section 408 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5174, as amended.
    This program provides financial assistance and, if necessary,
direct assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a
direct result of a major disaster or emergency, have uninsured or
under-insured expenses, and serious needs, and are unable to meet such
expenses or needs through other means.
    Individuals and households applying for assistance must provide
information detailing their losses and needs through the disaster
assistance registration process covered under collection 1660-0002,
Disaster Assistance Registration. If FEMA determines the applicant had
home or personal property damage, has no insurance, or that the
applicant's insurance coverage may not meet their needs, an inspection
is needed to verify disaster caused damage.
    All pertinent information for a specific applicant is stored under
a unique registration identification (ID) within the National Emergency
Management Information System (NEMIS). An inspection request occurs due
to NEMIS-driven business rules (automatically), applicant request, or a
FEMA caseworker request. The scope of an inspection for owners includes
noting real and personal property (furnishing and appliances) damages
to the interior and exterior of the dwelling, addressing special needs,
transportation, unmet needs, and miscellaneous purchases. Inspectors do
not note real property specifications for renters.
    Once the inspector validates the information provided by the
applicant during registration intake, the inspector begins an
assessment of real and/or personal property damages utilizing Automated
Construction Estimator (ACE) software. The same ACE software screens
are used regardless of how the inspection occurs (i.e., via onsite, via
voice over the phone, or via video). The inspector then uploads this
information back to FEMA via the NEMIS through use of a secure
connection. The inspector only records observed disaster caused damages
and does not determine eligibility or damage award levels. FEMA's
policies and business rules determine eligibility and award levels
based upon the damage assessment, and other available information.
    For this submission, FEMA identified two NFIP Direct claim forms in
which necessary data could be combined or collected in other forms or
systems, thereby eliminating the need for those forms, and reducing
duplicative information collection. Accordingly, FEMA proposes to
remove the following two forms from this collection: (1) FEMA Form FF-
206-FY-21-113, Advance Payment Request--Building & Contents, and (2)
FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-114, Advance Payment Request--Increased Cost of
Compliance (ICC).
    This proposed information collection previously published in the
Federal Register on December 8, 2022, at 87 FR 75281 with a 60 day
public comment period. FEMA received one public comment. The public
comment is not germane to this collection.
    The purpose of this notice is to notify the public that FEMA will
submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of
Management and Budget for review and clearance.

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Inspection and NFIP Direct Claims Forms.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, with change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0005.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-106 (formerly 086-0-06) Personal
Property (Contents) Worksheet; FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-107 (formerly
086-0-07), Building Property Worksheet; FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-108
(formerly 086-0-09), Proof of Loss--Building & Contents (Policyholder-
Prepared); FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-109 (formerly 086-0-10), Proof of
Loss--Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC); FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-110
(formerly 086-0-11), First Notice of Loss; FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-111
(formerly 086-0-17), Manufactured (Mobile) Home/Travel Trailer
Worksheet; FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-112 (formerly 086-0-22), Proof of
Loss--Building & Contents (Adjuster-Prepared); FEMA Form FF-206-FY-21-
115 (formerly 086-0-25), Claim Appeal; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-220
(formerly 009-0-143), Onsite Housing Inspections; FEMA Form FF-104-FY-
22-221 (formerly 009-0-144), Remote Voice Telephony Housing
Inspections; and FEMA Form FF-104-FY-22-222 (formerly 009-0-145),
Remote Video Telephony Housing Inspections.
    Abstract: After a flood loss, claims forms are used by NFIP Direct
policyholders to provide information needed to investigate, document,
evaluate, and adjudicate claims against FEMA policies for flood damage
to insured property or determine eligibility and settlement for
benefits under Coverage D, Increased Cost of Compliance coverage. After
a federally-declared disaster, FEMA inspectors use household inspection
instruments to verify applicant information and document damage to
determine award eligibility.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households, businesses or other
for-profit, not-for-profit institutions, and State, local or Tribal
governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 302,360.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 302,360.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 309,621.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $12,573,707.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.00.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.00.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government:
$103,163,066.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Millicent Brown Wilson,
Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief Administrative
Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2023-03613 Filed 2-21-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


0 mg/ kg/ day 30 mg/ kg/ day 75 mg/ kg/ day 160 mg/ kg/ day Urinary System Kidney ( 50) ( 50) ( 48) ( 50) Atrophy, focal 4 ( 8%) 4 ( 8%) Autolysis 1 ( 2%) Casts 1 ( 2%) Congestion 1 ( 2%) Crystals 1 ( 2%) 21( 42%) Cyst 3 ( 6%) 1 ( 2%) 4 ( 8%) 2( 4%) Glomerulosclemsis 1 ( 2%) Inflammation, acute, focal 1 ( 2%) Inflammation, chronic 1( 2%) Mineralization 28 ( 56%) 33 ( 66%) 32 ( 67%) 36( 72%) Nephropathy 1 ( 2%) 2 ( 4%) 19( 38%) Cortex, cyst 1 ( 2%) Renal tubule, cyst 1 ( 2%) Renal tubule, degeneration 1 ( 2%) 1 ( 2%) Renal tubule, dilatation 1 ( 2%) 2 ( 4%) Renal tubule, mineralization 1 ( 2%)

23 ( 46%) Renal tubule, regeneration 25 ( 50%) 28 ( 58%) 21( 42%)

Urinary bladder ( 49) ( 49) ( 45) ( 45) Inflammation, granulomatous 1 ( 2%)

0 mg/ kg/ day 40 mg/ kg/ day 90 mg/ kg/ day 200 mg/ kg/ day Urinary System Kidney ( 50) ( 53) ( 50) ( 54)

Amyloid deposition 2 ( 4%) Atrophy, focal 2( 4%) 2 ( 4%) 4 ( 8%) 1 ( 2%) Casts 1 ( 2%) Congestion 1 ( 2%) 1 ( 2%) Crystals 36 ( 67%) Glomerulosclerosis 1( 2%) 1 ( 2%) Hyperplasia, lymphoid 1 ( 2%) Inflammation, focal 1( 2%) Metaplasia, osseous 1 ( 2%) Mineralization 3( 6%) 1 ( 2%) 2 ( 4%) Nephropathy 2 ( 4%) I ( 2%) 37 ( 69%) Papilla, necrosis I ( 2%) Renal tubule, degeneration 2 ( 4%) Renal tubule, dilatation 2 ( 4%) 1 ( 2%) 2 ( 4%) Renal tubule, pigmentation, hemosiderin 1 ( 2%) Renal tubule, regeneration 5( 10%) 6 ( 11%) 9 ( 18%) 2 ( 4%) Urinary bladder ( 47) ( 46) ( 46) ( 48) Hyperplasia, lymphoid 1 ( 2%) Inflammation, chronic, focal 2 ( 4%) Data from NTP Technical Report 432 Appendices C and D from which EPA's draft RfD is derived.

Non Neoplastic Lesions in Male mice Non Neoplastic Lesions in Female mice


[Federal Register: October 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 192)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 57242-57244]
[DOCID:fr02oc08-6]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0738]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Wrightsville
Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing Temporary special local
regulations for the swim portions of ``Beach 2 Battleship Full and Half
Iron Distance Triathlon'', to be held on the waters of Banks Channel,
adjacent to Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. These special local
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict
vessel traffic in Wrightsville Channel during the swimming portion of
this event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. on November 1,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2008-0738 and are available online at
www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the Fifth
Coast Guard District, Prevention Division, 431 Crawford Street, Room
416, Portsmouth, VA 23704 between 10

a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Christopher D. Humphrey, Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina, Atlantic Beach, NC<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On August 18, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Special Local Regulations for Marine Events;
Wrightsville Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC in the Federal Register
(73 FR 48160). We received no letters commenting on the proposed rule.
No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    On November 1, 2008, the Wilmington YMCA will sponsor the ``Beach 2
Battleship Full and Half Iron Distance Triathlon'' on the waters of
Banks Channel including the waters of Wrightsville Channel adjacent to
Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. The swim portion of the event will
consist of two groups of 500 swimmers entering Banks Channel southwest
of the Coast Guard Station and swimming northeast along Wrightsville
Channel and Motts Channel to Seapath Marina. A fleet of spectator
vessels are expected to gather near the event site to view the
competition. To provide for the safety of the participants, spectators
and other transiting vessels, the Coast Guard will temporarily restrict
vessel traffic in the event area during this event.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard did not receive comments in response to the notice
of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register.
Accordingly, the Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local
regulations on specified waters of Wrightsville Channel, Wrightsville
Beach, NC.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion
of Wrightsville Channel and Motts Channel during the event, the effect
of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration
that the regulated area will be in effect. Extensive advance
notification will be made to the maritime community via marine
information broadcast, area newspapers, local radio and television
stations so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. Additionally,
the regulated area has been narrowly tailored to impose the least
impact on general navigation yet provide the level of safety deemed
necessary. Vessel traffic will be able to transit the regulated area
between races, when the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it is safe
to do so.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit this section of Wrightsville Channel, Motts Channel and Banks
Channel from 6 a.m. to 11 a.m. on November 1, 2008. This rule would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons. Although the regulated area will
apply to the Wrightsville Channel, traffic may be allowed to pass
through the regulated area with the permission of the Coast Guard
Patrol Commander. In the case where the Patrol Commander authorizes
passage through the regulated area, vessels shall proceed at the
minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course that minimizes wake
near the swim course. The Patrol Commander will allow non-participating
vessels to transit the event area once all swimmers are safely clear of
navigation channels and vessel traffic areas. Before the enforcement
period, we will issue maritime advisories so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with
Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
under the Instruction that there are no factors in this case that would
limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the
Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--REGATTAS AND MARINE PARADES

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  100.35-T05-0738 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35-T05-0738  Wrightsville Channel, Wrightsville Beach, NC.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulated area is established for the
waters of Banks Channel, adjacent to Wrightsville Beach, NC, from the
southern tip of Wrightsville Beach approximate position latitude
34[deg]11'15'' N, longitude 077[deg]48'51'' W, thence northeast to
Seapath Marina, Wrightsville Beach, NC. approximate position latitude
34[deg]12'45'' N, longitude 077[deg]48'27'' W. All coordinates
reference Datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. (1) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard who have
been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina.
    (2) Official Patrol means any person or vessel assigned or approved
by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina with a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    (3) Participant includes all swimmers and support vessels
participating in the ``Beach 2 Battleship Full and Half Iron Distance
Triathlon'' under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the
event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector North
Carolina.
    (c) Special local regulations. (1) Except for persons or vessels
authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may
enter or remain in the regulated area.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area must: (i) Stop
the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any Official Patrol
and then proceed only as directed.
    (ii) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Official Patrol.
    (iii) The operator of a vessel in the regulated area shall stop the
vessel immediately when instructed to do so by the Official Patrol and
then proceed as directed.
    (iv) When authorized to transit the regulated area, all vessels
shall proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course
that minimizes wake near the swim course.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 6 a.m.
to 11 a.m. on November 1, 2008.

    Dated: September 25, 2008.
Neil O. Buschman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District Acting
 [FR Doc. E8-23188 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21993-21994]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0415]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a
Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Request for
Revocation of Authority Granted

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
FMCSA announces its plan to submit to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) its request to revise a currently-approved information
collection request (ICR) entitled, ``Request for Revocation of
Authority Granted,'' covered by OMB Control Number 2126-0018. This ICR
covers a voluntary request by a motor carrier, freight forwarder, or
property broker to amend or revoke its FMCSA registration of authority
granted. It is being revised due to an anticipated decrease in the
estimated annual number of filings and costs to the respondents. FMCSA
will seek OMB's review and approval of this revised ICR and invites
public comment on this request.

DATES: Please send your comments by May 19, 2014. OMB must receive your
comments by this date in order to act on the ICR.

ADDRESSES: All comments should reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2013-0415. Interested persons are
invited to submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the attention
of the Desk Officer, Department of Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tura Gatling, Office of
Registration and Safety Information, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: 202-385-
2405/2412; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>mailto: Office hours are from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Request for Revocation of Authority Granted.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0018.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers, freight forwarders and property
brokers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,000.
    Estimated Time per Response: 15 minutes.
    Expiration Date: May 31, 2014.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 750 hours [3,000 annual Form OCE-46
filers x 15 minutes/60 minutes per filing = 750]

Background

    Title 49 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) authorizes the
Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to promulgate regulations
governing the registration of for-hire motor carriers of regulated
commodities (49 U.S.C. 13902), surface transportation freight
forwarders (49 U.S.C. 13903), and property brokers (49 U.S.C. 13904).
The FMCSA carries out this registration program under authority
delegated by the Secretary (49 CFR 1.87). Under 49 U.S.C. 13905, each
registration is effective from the date specified and remains in effect
for such period as the Secretary determines appropriate by regulation.
Section 13905(d) of title 49, U.S.C., grants the Secretary the
authority to amend or revoke a registration at the registrant's
request. Based on a complaint, or on the Secretary's own initiative,
the Secretary may also suspend, amend, or revoke any part of the
registration of a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder for
willful failure to comply with the regulations, an order of the
Secretary, or a condition of its registration.
    Form OCE-46 is used by transportation entities to voluntarily apply
for revocation of their registration authority in whole or in part.
FMCSA uses the form to seek information concerning the registrant's
docket number, name and address, and the reasons for the revocation
request.
    Comments from the Public: The FMCSA received no comment in response
to the 60-day comment request Federal Register notice published on
December 26, 2013 for this ICR (78 FR 78469).
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the FMCSA to perform its functions; (2) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: April 9,
2014.
G. Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2014-08879 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Hello Mr. Zeller:

As an individual consumer, I've recently become aware there are pending regulations upon products that I have used to stop smoking.  My last cigarette was exactly 3 weeks ago today.

At any rate, I'm writing to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. I'm requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me as a consumer of these products. The comment period provides very little time for me to do further research, and I'd like to inform myself as thoroughly as possible in order to be able to make substantive comments that I feel comfortable with.  I've done quite a bit of study already, but I do understand the complexity of the issue and realize there is much more to learn.

Very briefly, I was a heavy smoker for 42 years who developed lung cancer which made it necessary to remove a lobe from my left lung.  Yet, I still struggled with method after method of smoking cessation and various products, becoming more and more hopeless with each failed attempt, until a friend showed me an electronic cigarette, and how it worked.  It took me approximately 4 months to stop smoking cigarettes entirely, during which time I transitioned from cigarettes to a personal vaporizer.  My friends and family are fairly amazed, but I'm the most amazed of all.

I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend the time frame for comment and hope that it is able to do so.

Thanks for the opportunity to request an extentsion - I deeply feel that considering all that's at stake here, further study isn't a choice, it's a necessity.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 162 (Thursday, August 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 51430]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18128]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2020-0183; FRL-10013-75-ORD]

Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan for Oral Exposure to
Vanadium and Compounds; Extension of Public Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period; extension.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the
public comment period for the document titled, ``Availability of the
IRIS Assessment Plan for Oral Exposure to Vanadium and Compounds.'' The
original Federal Register document announcing the public comment period
was published on July 24, 2020. The public science webinar will still
convene on August 19, 2020.

DATES: The public comment period for the notice published on July 24,
2020 (85 FR 44887), is being extended. The EPA must receive comments on
or before September 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The ``Availability of the IRIS Assessment Plan for Oral
Exposure to Vanadium and Compounds'' is available via the internet on
IRIS' website at https://www.epa.gov/iris and in the public docket at
https://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-ORD-2020-0183.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information on the draft IRIS Assessment Plan for
Oral Exposure to Vanadium and Compounds, contact Dr. James Avery,
CPHEA; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: How to Submit Technical Comments to the
Docket at https://www.regulations.gov. Submit your comments, identified
by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2020-0183 for the vanadium and compounds
(oral) IRIS assessment, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Due to COVID-19, there may be a delay
in processing comments submitted by fax.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Due to COVID-
19, there may be a delay in processing comments submitted by mail.
For information on visiting the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room,
visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets. Due to public health concerns
related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room may be
closed to the public with limited exceptions. The telephone number for
the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The public can submit comments
via www.Regulations.gov or email.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number EPA-HQ-ORD-
2020-0183 for vanadium and compounds (oral). Please ensure that your
comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments
received after the closing date will be marked ``late,'' and may only
be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include all
comments it receives in the public docket without change and to make
the comments available online at www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless a comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information for which disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information through www.regulations.gov or email that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov
website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA
without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center.

Wayne Cascio,
Director, Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2020-18128 Filed 8-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 176)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52616-52619]
[DOCID:fr10se08-12]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0475; FRL-8380-1]

Acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-
oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), hydrolyzed;
Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with
sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate
(1:1), hydrolyzed (CAS No. 924892-37-5); when used as an inert
ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation. Celanese Ltd. submitted
a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.
This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible
level for residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-
methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1),
hydrolyzed on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective September 10, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before November 10, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0475. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket 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 Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Samek, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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.
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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing electronically available documents at
http://www.regulations.gov, you may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access
a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/
ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0475 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 10, 2008.

    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0475, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of July 9, 2008 (73 FR 39289) (FRL-8371-2),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408 of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a,
announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP 8E7364) filed by
Celanese Ltd., 1601 West LBJ Freeway, Dallas, TX 75234. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of acetic acid ethenyl
ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-
propanesulfonate (1:1), hydrolyzed; CAS No. 924892-37-5. That notice
included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner and
solicited comments on the petitioner's request. The Agency did not
receive any comments.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,'' and specifies
factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability,
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with
sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate
(1:1), hydrolyzed conforms to the definition of a polymer given in 40
CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria that are used to
identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    7. The polymer's number average MW of 61,000 daltons is greater
than or equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2%
oligomeric material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material
below MW 1,000.
    Thus, acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-2-
[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), hydrolyzed meets
the criteria for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR
723.250. Based on its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no
mammalian toxicity is anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal
exposure to acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-2-
[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), hydrolyzed.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with
sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate
(1:1), hydrolyzed could be present in all raw and processed
agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational
non-dietary exposure was possible. The number average MW of acetic acid
ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-
yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), hydrolyzed is 61,000 daltons.
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly

absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact
human skin. Since acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-
methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1),
hydrolyzed conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer,
there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure
scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined
that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Section 408 (b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance or tolerance
exemption, the Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the
cumulative effects of a particular chemical's residues and ``other
substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.'' For the purposes
of this tolerance action, EPA has not assumed that acetic acid ethenyl
ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-
propanesulfonate (1:1), hydrolyzed has a common mechanism of toxicity
with other substances, based on the anticipated absence of mammalian
toxicity. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the policy statements
released by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs concerning common
mechanism determinations and procedures for cumulating effects from
substances found to have a common mechanism on EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA concludes that
a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Due
to the expected low toxicity of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with
sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate
(1:1), hydrolyzed, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to assess
the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is
unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer
with sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate
(1:1), hydrolyzed.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

B. International Tolerances

    The Agency is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for
acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-
propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), hydrolyzed nor have any
CODEX Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) been established for any food crops
at this time.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of acetic acid
ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-
yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), hydrolyzed from the requirement of
a tolerance will be safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these rules from review under
Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been exempted from
review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children
from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15
U.S.C. 272 note).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or otherwise have any unique
impacts on local governments. Thus, the Agency has determined that
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not
apply to this final rule. In addition, this final rule does not impose
any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law
104-4).
    Although this action does not require any special considerations
under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), EPA seeks to achieve
environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of
any group, including minority and/or low-income populations, in the
development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies. As such, to the extent that information is
publicly available or was submitted in comments to EPA, the Agency
considered whether groups or segments of the population, as a result of
their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical
or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or
environmental effects from exposure to the pesticide discussed in this

document, compared to the general population.

XI. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this rule in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 29, 2008.
Donald R. Stubbs,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec. 180.960, the table is amended by adding alphabetically the
following polymer to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                * * * * *
Acetic acid ethenyl ester, polymer with sodium 2-methyl-     924892-37-5
 2-[(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)amino]-1-propanesulfonate
 (1:1), hydrolyzed, minimum number average molecular
 weight (in amu), 61,000................................
                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E8-20984 Filed 9-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 123 (Thursday, June 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 38248]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13732]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2020-51]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Lufthansa
Technik AG

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before July 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2020-0571
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deana Stedman, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 22, 2020.
Paul R. Siegmund,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2020-0571.
    Petitioner: Lufthansa Technik AG.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Special Aviation Regulation No.
109, sec. 7(a).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking FAA
design approval to install an executive-style interior in a Boeing
Model 787-8 airplane. The airplane is intended for private use only,
not for-hire, and not for common carriage. The petitioner's proposed
design requires relief from section 7(a) of Special Aviation
Regulation No. 109, which relates to the requirements for the
maximum distance between emergency exits and maximum distance
between each passenger seat and the nearest exit.

[FR Doc. 2020-13732 Filed 6-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 32379-32380]
[DOCID:fr05jn06-84]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53880; File No. SR-Amex-2006-51]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; American Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt an Options Licensing Fee for Options on Market Vectors-Gold
Miners Exchange-Traded Fund

May 26, 2006.
    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 May 19, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (``Amex'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. Amex has
designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Amex proposes to modify its Options Fee Schedule by adopting a per-
contract license fee for the orders of specialists, registered options
traders, firms, non-member market makers, and broker-dealers
(collectively, ``Market Participants'') in connection with options
transactions on the shares of the Market Vectors-Gold Miners exchange-
traded fund (symbol: GDX).
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site http://www.amex.com, at the Exchange's principal

office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposal is to adopt a per-contract options
licensing fee in connection with options on GDX. Amex represents that
it plans to assess the proposed options licensing fee on members
commencing May 22, 2006.
    The Exchange has entered into numerous agreements with various
index providers for the purpose of trading options on certain exchange-
traded funds (``ETFs'') such as GDX. As a result, the Exchange is
required to pay index license fees to third parties as a condition to
the listing and trading of these ETF options. In many cases, the
Exchange is required to pay a significant licensing fee to the index
provider that may not be reimbursed. In an effort to recoup the costs
associated with certain index licenses, the Exchange has recently
established per-contract licensing fees for orders of Market
Participants that are collected on each option transaction in certain
designated products in which such Market Participant is a party.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52493 (September 22,
2005), 70 FR 56941 (September 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the proposal, therefore, is to charge an options
licensing fee in connection with options on the GDX. Specifically, Amex
seeks to charge an options licensing fee of $0.05 per contract side for
GDX options for Market Participant orders executed on the Exchange. In
all cases, the fee would be charged only to the Exchange member through
whom such order is placed.
    Amex represents that the proposed options licensing fees would
allow the Exchange to recoup its costs in connection with the index
license fees for the trading of GDX options. The fees would be
collected on every Market Participant order executed on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that requiring the payment of a per-contract
licensing fee in connection with GDX options by those Market
Participants that benefit from the index license agreements is
justified and consistent with the rules of the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that, in recent years, it has revised a number
of its fees to better align Amex fees with the actual cost of
delivering services and reduce Amex's subsidization of such services.
The Exchange believes that the implementation of this proposal is
consistent with the reduction and/or elimination of these subsidies.
Amex believes that these fees will help to allocate to those Market
Participants engaging in transactions in GDX options a fair share of
the related costs of offering such options for trading.
    The Exchange asserts that the proposal provides for an equitable

allocation of fees as required by Section 6(b)(4) of the Act.\6\ In
connection with the adoption of options licensing fees for GDX options,
the Exchange believes that charging an options licensing fee, where
applicable, to all Market Participant orders, except for customer
orders, is reasonable given the competitive pressures in the industry.
Accordingly, the Exchange seeks, through this proposal, to better align
its transaction charges with the cost of providing products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Section 6(b)(4) of the Act states that the rules of a
national securities exchange must ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities.'' 15
U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \7\ regarding the equitable allocation
of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and other
persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder
\9\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the Exchange. At any time within 60 days of the filing of
the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File No. SR-Amex-2006-51 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-51. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all

written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing
also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal
office of Amex. 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-
Amex-2006-51 and should be submitted on or before June 26, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-8644 Filed 6-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: July 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 41066-41067]
[DOCID:fr26jy07-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-595-007]

Discovery Gas Transmission LLC; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

July 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on June 29, 2007, Discovery Gas Transmission LLC
(Discovery) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective
July 1, 2007:

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 22

Original Sheet No. 22.a

    Discovery states that the filing is being made to revise it tariff
to reflect a negotiated rate agreements with Texas Eastern
Transmission, L.P. and Mariner Energy, Inc.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.  154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone
filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before
the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-14410 Filed 7-25-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26924-26927]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12089]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86024; File No. SR-MIAX-2019-26]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Order Monitor

June 4, 2019.
    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 May 24, 2019, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC (``MIAX
Options'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX
Order Monitor, in order to harmonize its rule to the rules of the
Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings/ at MIAX Options'
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 519, MIAX Order
Monitor, to align its behavior pertaining to the handling of limit
orders to buy and limit orders to sell to that of MIAX Emerald.
Current Functionality
    In order to avoid the occurrence of potential obvious or
catastrophic errors on the Exchange the MIAX Order Monitor will prevent
certain orders from executing or being placed on the Book at prices
outside pre-set standard limits. Beginning after the Opening Process-
\3\ is complete, the MIAX Order Monitor will be operational each
trading day until the close of trading.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Rule 503(f).
    \4\ See Exchange Rule 519(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsection (3) of paragraph (a), Limit Orders to Buy or Sell, of
the Rule, states that the System \5\ will reject an incoming limit
order that crosses the contra-side NBBO \6\ by at least 50% or $2.50,
whichever is less. The following examples illustrate those situations
where lower priced limit orders are rejected because they cross the
NBBO by at least 50%: (A) If the NBBO on the offer side is $4.00, an
order to buy options for $6.00 or more will be rejected; and (B) if the
NBBO on the bid side is $4.00, an order to sell options for $2.00 or
less will be rejected. Additionally, the following are examples of
those situations where higher priced limit orders are rejected because
they cross the NBBO by $2.50 or more: (A) If the NBBO on the offer side
is $12.00, an order to buy options for $14.50 or more will be rejected;
and (B) if the NBBO on the bid side is $12.00, an order to sell options
for $9.50 or less will be rejected. Notwithstanding the foregoing, with
respect to limit orders to sell, the MIAX Order Monitor will not be
activated when the NBBO on the bid side is equal to or less than $0.25.
Thus, the System will accept all limit orders to sell regardless of
price during this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \6\ The term ``NBBO'' means the national best bid or offer as
calculated by the Exchange based on market information received by
the Exchange from OPRA. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposal
    The Exchange proposes to amend current subsection (3) to create a
separate subsection for limit orders to buy (proposed subsection (3)),
and for limit orders to sell (proposed subsection (4)). The Exchange
proposes to introduce a new threshold for limit orders to buy which
will provide that for options with a National Best Offer (``NBO'') less
than or equal to $0.50 the System will reject an incoming limit order
that has a limit price that is equal to or greater than the NBO Price
by $0.25. The Exchange believes that creating separate subsections
dedicated to limit orders to buy and limit orders to sell will add
clarity and additional detail to the Exchange's Rule. Additionally, the
Exchange proposes to provide new examples demonstrating the operation
of the MIAX Order Monitor functionality for both limit orders to buy
and limit orders to sell.
    Proposed subsection (3), Limit Orders to Buy, will provide that for
options with a National Best Offer (``NBO'') greater than $0.50 the
System will reject an incoming limit order that has a limit price equal
to or greater than the NBO by the lesser of (i) $2.50, or (ii) 50% of
the NBO price. The proposed rule will also provide that for options
with an NBO less than or equal to $0.50 the System will reject an
incoming limit order that has a limit price that is equal to or greater
than the NBO price by $0.25.
    The proposed examples provide that (A) if the NBO is $12.00 an
incoming limit order to buy options for $14.50 or more will be
rejected; and (B) if the NBO is $0.10 an incoming limit order to buy
options for $0.15 will not be rejected; whereas if the NBO is $0.10 an
incoming limit order to buy options for $0.35 will be rejected as the
limit price of the order is $0.25 greater than the NBO. Proposed
example A provides an example of an order being rejected when the
order's limit price ($14.50) is greater than the NBO ($12.00) by the
lesser of $2.50 or 50% of the NBO price ($6.00). Proposed example B
demonstrates how the protection works when the NBO of the option is
$0.50 or less. If the NBO is $0.10 an incoming limit order to buy
options for $0.15 will not be rejected as the order's limit price is
not $0.25 greater ($.35) than the NBO price.
    Proposed subsection (4) Limit Orders to Sell, will provide that for
options with a National Best Bid (``NBB'') equal to or greater than
$0.25 the System will reject an incoming limit order that has a limit
price equal to or less than the NBB by the lesser of (i) $2.50, or (ii)
50% of the NBB price. For options with an NBB of $0.25 or less the
System will accept any incoming limit order.
    Additionally, the proposed rule will include examples to
demonstrate the operation of the rule in different circumstances. The
proposed examples provide that (A) if the NBB is $12.00 an incoming
limit order to sell options for $9.50 or less will be rejected; and (B)
if the NBB is $0.30 an incoming limit order to sell options for $0.15
will be rejected; whereas if the NBB is $0.30 an incoming limit order
to sell options for $0.20 will not be rejected as the limit price of
the order is not less than 50% of the NBB price. Proposed example A
provides an example of an order being rejected when the order's limit
price ($9.50) is less than the NBB ($12.00) by the lesser of $2.50 or
50% of the NBB price ($6.00). Proposed example B demonstrates how the
protection works when the NBB of the option is greater than $0.25.
    The Exchange believes its proposed changes provide additional
detail and clarity to the Exchange's rules concerning order protections
for incoming limit orders to buy and incoming limit orders to sell.
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Regulatory Circular to be published no later than 60
days following the operative date of the proposed rule. The
implementation date will be no later than 60 days following the
issuance of the Regulatory Circular.
2. Statutory Basis
    MIAX Options believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \7\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes its proposal promotes just and equitable
principles of trade, removes impediments to and perfects the mechanisms
of a free and open market and a national market system, and in general,
protects investors and the public interest by establishing thresholds
for the handling of incoming limit orders to buy and sell, and by
providing examples describing the System's behavior in various
circumstances. Currently the Exchange's

Rule discusses the operation of the MIAX Order Monitor on incoming
limit orders to buy or incoming limit orders to sell in a single
paragraph.\9\ The Exchange believes providing separate paragraphs in
the Rule specifically discussing the MIAX Order Monitor process for
incoming limit orders to buy (proposed paragraph (a)(3)) and for
incoming limit orders to sell (proposed paragraph (a)(4)), promotes the
protection of investors and the public interest by providing additional
detail and clarity in the rule. It is in the best interest of investors
and the public for rules to be accurate and precise to avoid the
potential for confusion. Further, the Exchange believes that providing
a clear line of delineation for the treatment of limit orders to buy
when the NBO is less than or equal to $0.50, and for limit orders to
sell when the National Best Bid (``NBB'') is less than $0.25 benefits
investors and the public by establishing clear and unambiguous
thresholds regarding the acceptance or rejection of orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Exchange Rule 519(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to its rulebook add
additional detail and provide further clarification to Members,\10\
investors, and the public, regarding the Exchange's order monitoring
functionality. The Exchange believes it is in the interest of investors
and the public to accurately describe the behavior of the Exchange's
System in its rules as this information may be used by investors to
make decisions concerning the submission of their orders. Transparency
and clarity are consistent with the Act because it removes impediments
to and helps perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the
public interest by accurately describing the behavior of the Exchange's
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes promote just and
equitable principles of trade and removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, protects investors and the public interest by
providing additional detail and clarity in the Exchange's rules.
Further, the Exchange's proposal provides transparency and clarity in
the rules and is consistent with the Act because it removes impediments
to and helps perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a
national market system, and, in general, protects investors and the
public interest by accurately describing the behavior of the Exchange's
System. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
changes will provide greater clarity to Members and the public
regarding the Exchange's Rules, and it is in the public interest for
rules to be accurate and concise so as to eliminate the potential for
confusion.
    Additionally, the Exchange believes that although MIAX Options
rules may, in certain instances, intentionally differ from MIAX Emerald
rules, the proposed changes will promote uniformity with MIAX Emerald
with respect to rules that are intended to be identical. MIAX Options
and MIAX Emerald may have a number of Members in common, and where
feasible the Exchange intends to implement similar behavior to provide
consistency between MIAX Options and MIAX Emerald so as to avoid
confusion among Members.

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 proposed rule change is
designed to add additional clarity and detail to the Exchange's rules.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on inter-market competition as the Rules apply
equally to all Exchange Members. The proposed rule change is not a
competitive filing and is intended to enhance the protection of
investors by ensuring that the rule clearly and accurately describes
the scenarios when a limit order to buy or a limit order to sell will
be rejected by the Exchange's System. Additionally, the proposed rule
change provides examples of hypothetical scenarios to provide
additional detail and clarity to the Exchange's rulebook.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing 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 after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective
pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2019-26 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2019-26. 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-MIAX-2019-26 and should be
submitted on or before July 1, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-12089 Filed 6-7-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P