[Federal Register: March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12691-12695]
[DOCID:fr17mr10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325; FRL-8813-7]

Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation revises the tolerance for combined residues of
hexythiazox in or on grape. Gowan Company requested the tolerance under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 17, 2010. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 17, 2010, 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-2009-0325. 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: Olga Odiott, 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 those
engaged in the following activities:
     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 to
provide 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 Get Electronic Access to Other Related Information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR cite 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. 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-2009-0325 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 17, 2010. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    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 this copy, identified by docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325, 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. Petition for Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of August 19, 2009 (FR 41898) (FRL-8426-7),
EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 9F7556)
by Gowan Company, 370 South Main Street; Yuma, AZ 85364. The petition
requested that 40 CFR 180.448 be amended by revising the established
tolerance for combined residues of the insecticide hexythiazox, (trans-
5-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3-
carboxamide) and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-
methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, in or on grape from 0.75 to 1.0
part per million (ppm); plum from 0.10 to 1.0 ppm; and plum, prune,
dried from 0.40 to 1.0 ppm. That notice referenced a summary of the
petition prepared by Gowan Company, the registrant, which is available
to the public in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There were no
comments received in response to the notice of filing.
    Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has
determined that there is insufficient residue chemistry data to support
the proposed tolerances for the stone fruit use, therefore, this action
only addresses the tolerance for grape. The Agency is also revising the
tolerance expression for hexythiazox. The reason for these changes are
explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish 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(b)(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 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 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. . . .''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for hexythiazox including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with hexythiazox
follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies 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. Hexythiazox has a low order of acute toxicity by the oral,
dermal and inhalation routes of exposure. It produces mild eye
irritation, is not a dermal irritant, and is negative for dermal
sensitization.
    The target organs of hexythiazox are the liver and adrenal glands
in dogs, rats and mice, with the dog being the most sensitive species.
The chronic dog study showed increased liver and adrenal weights, along
with associated hypertrophy of the liver and adrenal glands. The
subchronic toxicity study in rats showed increased liver and adrenal
weights, as well as fatty degeneration of the adrenal zona fasciculate.
Effects observed in the chronic feeding/carcinogenicity studies in rats
and mice included decreased body weight gain and increased liver
weights.
    Hexythiazox is not a developmental or reproductive toxicant. The
toxicology database for hexythiazox provides no indication of increased
susceptibility in rats or rabbits from in utero and postnatal exposure
to hexythiazox. The database does not show any evidence of treatment-
related effects on the nervous system or the immune system.
    Hexythiazox is classified as ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to
Humans'' based upon increased incidences of benign and malignant liver
tumors in high-dose female mice, and benign mammary gland tumors,
observed in high-dose male rats. There was no evidence of
carcinogenicity in male mice and female rats. However, EPA determined
that a non-quantitative risk assessment approach (i.e., nonlinear,
reference dose (RfD) approach) was appropriate for hexythiazox based on
the following considerations:
    1. The liver tumors in mice are a very common tumor in that species
were only observed in high-dose females.
    2. The mammary tumors in rats were benign and were only observed in
high-dose male rats.
    3. Hexythiazox was shown to be non-mutagenic in mammalian somatic
cells and germ cells.
    Additionally, the chronic no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL)
used for establishing the chronic RfD (2.5 mg/kg/day, from the 1-year
toxicity feeding study in the dog), is approximately 65-fold lower than
the lowest dose that induced tumors (in female mice at 163 milligrams/
kilogram/day (mg/kg/day). Therefore, the chronic RfD of 0.025 mg/kg/day
is judged to be protective of all chronic effects including potential
carcinogenicity of hexythiazox.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by hexythiazox as well as the NOAEL and the
lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies
can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document ``Hexythiazox.
Human Health Risk Assessment to Support Amended Use on Grapes Reducing
the Preharvest Interval from 28-Days to 7-Days and to Add Uses on Turf,
Gardens and Ornamentals,'' page 27 in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-
0325.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which NOAEL and the LOAEL of concern are
identified. Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the
POD to calculate a safe exposure level generally referred to as a PAD
or a RfD and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks,
the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree
of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of
an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more
information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization
and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for hexythiazox used for
human risk assessment can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
document ``Hexythiazox.'' ``Human Health Risk Assessment to Support
Amended Use on Grapes Reducing the Preharvest Interval from 28-Days to
7-Days and to Add Uses on Turf, Gardens and Ornamentals,'' page 12 in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0325

 C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to hexythiazox, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerances as well as all existing hexythiazox tolerances in 40 CFR
180.448. EPA assessed dietary exposures from hexythiazox in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.
    No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for
hexythiazox; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure
assessment is unnecessary.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) 1994-1996 and 1998 Continuing Surveys of Food
Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). As to residue levels in food, EPA used
tolerance level residues, assumed 100 percent crop treated (PCT), and
incorporated default processing factors.
    iii. Cancer. As discussed in this unit, EPA has determined that the
chronic RfD is sufficient to evaluate all chronic

risks for this chemical, including carcinogenic potential. Cancer risk
was quantified using the same estimates as discussed in Unit
III.C.1.ii., chronic exposure.

    iv. Anticipated residue and PCT information. EPA did not use
anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the dietary assessment
for hexythiazox. Tolerance level residues and/or 100 PCT were assumed
for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening
level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk
assessment for hexythiazox in drinking water. These simulation models
take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport
characteristics of hexythiazox. Further information regarding EPA
drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be
found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm.
    Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling
System (PRZM/EXAMS) the estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC)
of hexythiazox for chronic exposures for non-cancer and cancer
assessments is estimated to be 4.1 parts per billion (ppb) for surface
water. Since surface water residue values greatly exceed groundwater
EDWCs, surface water residues were used in the dietary risk assessment.
    The modeled EDWC was directly entered into the dietary exposure
model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Hexythiazox is not currently registered for any specific use
patterns that would result in residential exposure. However, the
following uses that could result in residential exposures are pending
registration in the near future and are included in this risk
assessment: Turf, gardens, ornamental landscape plantings, ornamental
plants, trees and vines in nurseries, residential fruit trees, nut
trees and caneberries, and orchids. Residential handler exposures are
expected to be short-term (1 to 30 days) via either the dermal or
inhalation routes of exposures. Since a quantitative dermal risk
assessment is not required for hexythiazox; MOEs were calculated for
the inhalation route of exposure only. Both adults and children may be
exposed to hexythiazox residues from contact with treated lawns or
treated residential plants. Adult postapplication exposures were not
assessed since no quantitative dermal risk assessment is required for
hexythiazox and inhalation exposures are typically negligible in
outdoor settings. The exposure assessment for children included
incidental oral exposure resulting from transfer of residues from the
hands or objects to the mouth, and from incidental ingestion of soil.
No quantitative dermal risk assessment is required.
    Residential handler risks are not of concern as short-term
inhalation MOEs range from 40,000,000 to 820,000,000. Postapplication
risks for children are not of concern as incidental oral short-term
MOEs range from 2,600 to 3,200,000 and intermediate-term MOEs range
from 5,600 to 3,200,000 ( MOEs which exceed 100 are not of concern).
None of the subject uses are expected to result in long-term
residential exposures.
    Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at http://www.epa.gov/
pesticides/trac/science/trac6a05.pdf.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found hexythiazox to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and hexythiazox does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
hexythiazox does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. 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 EPA's website at http://
www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) 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 on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The prenatal and postnatal
toxicology data base indicates no increased susceptibility of rats or
rabbits to in utero and/or postnatal exposure to hexythiazox.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. That decision is based on the following
findings:
     i. The toxicity database for hexythiazox is incomplete under the
new 40 CFR part 158 data requirements for conventional pesticides,
which requires certain generic testing, including acute and subchronic
neurotoxicity studies and an immunotoxicity study. However, the
toxicology database does not show any evidence of treatment-related
effects on the nervous system or the immune system. The overall weight
of evidence suggests that this chemical does not directly target either
system. Although acute and subchronic neurotoxicity studies and an
immunotoxicity study are required as a part of new data requirements in
the 40 CFR part 158 for conventional pesticide registrations, the
Agency does not believe that conducting these studies will result in a
lower POD than any currently used for risk assessment, and therefore, a
database uncertainty factor (UFDB) is not needed to account
for the lack of these studies.
    ii. There is no indication that hexythiazox is a neurotoxic
chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study
or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.
    iii. There is no evidence that hexythiazox results in increased
susceptibility in in utero rats or rabbits in the prenatal
developmental studies or in young rats in the two-generation
reproduction study
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The dietary risk assessment is
highly conservative and not expected to underestimate risk. EPA made
conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water
modeling used to assess exposure to hexythiazox in drinking water. EPA

used similarly conservative assumptions to assess postapplication
exposure of children as well as incidental oral exposure of toddlers.
These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed
by hexythiazox.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute population adjusted-dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted-
dose (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime
probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure.
Short-term, intermediate-term, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by
comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure
to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account
acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking
water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was
identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
hexythiazox is not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
hexythiazox from food and water will utilize 49% of the cPAD for
(children 1 to 2 years old) the population group receiving the greatest
exposure. Based on the explanation in Unit III.C.3., regarding
residential use patterns, chronic residential exposure to residues of
hexythiazox is not expected.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level).
    There are potential short-term exposures from the pending
residential uses for hexythiazox. The Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
short-term residential exposures to hexythiazox.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water,
and residential exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 16,000 for adults
and 1,300 for children. Because EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox
is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level).
    There are potential intermediate-term exposures from the pending
residential uses for hexythiazox. The Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water with
intermediate-term residential exposure to hexythiazox.
    Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in
aggregate MOEs of 16,000 for adults and 1,700 for children. Because
EPA's level of concern for hexythiazox is a MOE of 100 or below, these
MOEs are not of concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has classified
hexythiazox as ``Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans,'' but has
determined that there is insufficient evidence to quantify risk using a
cancer slope factor. As discussed in Unit III.A EPA concluded that
regulation based on the chronic RfD will be protective for both chronic
and carcinogenic risks. As noted in this unit there are no chronic
risks of concern.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to hexythiazox residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (high performance liquid
chromatography with UV detection (HPLC/UV)) is available to enforce the
tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Chief,
Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes
Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    A Codex MRL is established at 1.0 ppm for grape. The Agency has
harmonized the residue level, but notes that it is not possible to
harmonize the tolerance expression at this time as the Codex maxium
residue limit (MRL) includes parent only. There are no currently
established Canadian or Mexican MRLs for residues of hexythiazox in/on
grape.

C. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

    The Agency has revised the tolerance expression to clarify 1. that,
as provided in FFDCA section 408(a)(3), the tolerance covers
metabolites and degradates of hexythiazox not specifically mentioned;
and 2. that compliance with the specified tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only the specific compounds mentioned in the
tolerance expression. The Agency determined that there is insufficient
residue chemistry data to support the proposed tolerances for the stone
fruit use; therefore, this action only addresses the tolerance for
grape.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, the tolerance for residues of hexythiazox, in or on
grape is revised from 0.75 ppm to 1.0 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances 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 types of actions 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 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).
    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. 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).
    This action does not 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).

VII. 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 final rule in the Federal
Register. This final 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: March 8, 2010.
Lois Rossi,
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. Sec.  180.448 revise the introductory text in paragraph (a), and
revise the entry ``Grape`` in the table in paragraph (a), and revise
introductory text in paragraphs (b), and (c) to read as follows:

Sec. 180.448  Hexythiazox; tolerance for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of
hexythiazox, including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the
commodities in the table below. Compliance with the tolerance levels
specified below is to be determined by measuring only hexythiazox and
its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-
thiazolidine moiety, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of
hexythiazox.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Commodity                                            Parts per million
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    * * * * *
Grape.................................................                                                       1.0
                                                    * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Section 18 emergency exemptions. Time-limited tolerances are
established for residues of hexythiazox, including its metabolites and
degradates, in connection with use of the pesticide under section 18
emergency exemptions granted by EPA. Compliance with the tolerance
levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-
methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of hexythiazox. These tolerances will expire and are revoked
on the dates specified in the following table:
* * * * *
    (c) Tolerances with regional registrations. Tolerances with
regional registrations as defined by 40CFR 180.1(n), are established
for residues of hexythiazox, including its metabolites and degradates,
in or on the commodities in the table below. Compliance with the
tolerance levels specified below is to be determined by measuring only
hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-
methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety, calculated as the stoichiometric
equivalent of hexythiazox.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-5692 Filed 3-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


cv a m a W 2W w I5  I 4 E n W W E rr: E E w LL z aJ. a 0 m Y . e 0 . E Y cv Y i x2 iW zk W Wz k 3 Z m 5 30 m 2 a aW 11 Q v) W W 3 v) v) 3 3 a 0 a 0 T rncv FTt cv d OPPT 2002 0009 0038 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 July 14 11: 39AM CD m c\ l c\ l T 7 e i U z 0: i c'

I 2 ~

n crz 3 I? w rY U m 0 a 3 I Q z s >. Z n ! c z a Z an n 4 2U 2 U x U m 3 m 3 n 3 ! i 2 J 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0) 0) 0) 0) N r? v F ST! T ST! c\ l c\ l ( v ( v c\ I ( v d d d d d Tt ' 7 3 T c\ I m d u3 a0 0 0 0 0 0 2Y v F m 4 4 . r 4 T 4 4 T 4 . r m D D m D cv c\ 1 cv d In W c a, E m ' t: a, 0 Q 2 Q e c2 U cv E2 . ? b 3 w w cj P xffl i 0 . 0  J a, P u im a, v) 3 s 8 cr"

II a, CI v) c U 2 2 . 0 fflW W m v) v) 0 3 3 n 0 0 0 m 03 03 0 F z F 2cv cv CV iud d d d W 0 v 0 0 v Y P 9 4 P  0 Y T T F m a m m m d 7 N 2 N d2 9 0 a CL 0 I a,

2 Q S 5 v)

5 Y v) W . 0 v) m 0 n m 0 0 cnz T nl nl d d In cn 0 T 0 0 F 0 Fx 0 F x x n4 4T 7 m m'm i3 n N m h W ' i cu Y . 0 v, K m W a iit .. w W  1 K W c3,

. '

im . h Y 7 2 7 2 W E 3 f Wi5 3 9 v) 6 0 m 3 0 0 0 0 0 cnP N ; f N d N d N d N d CI] d  7

0 N Y z z z z 0 0 24 9 ' i' i' i

W U LL m cc) mcu m d ?

z h 4 r 0 Q 2  m t ii 0 0 2 cu . cu 7 rr E d w w .. 0 Y Y I v) v) 0 0 2 e e 0 s s n 0 3 a: W 5tcl 11 W a, c(

v) W 0 0 ( 3, a 0 0 0 LS) 7 . r z z 7cu cu cuv d 3 cv cud d Lo a 0 0 c? 4 7 . r LL LL LL L co cs) m m m+

3 c v) a,

7 F .0 .0 . z 2 h a E u d, W .. Y Y 0 0 v) 0 E s s F N Y Y 2 4 9 4 Y Y F LL LL L a T r? N 0 0 +

2 a + rn $

N . 0 m T. 0 T rz a ?

uj ui w. Y . v 3 Y 0 v) v) 0 0 E E E2 2 s ( 0 c 2 + d a, v) c v) W W . 0 v) . 0 m v)

0 m a 0 n m 0 d Lo 0 04 0 A Y d xY Y LL LL LL


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20786-20787]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08181]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0027-N-41]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On
December 18, 2020, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for
public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
May 21, 2021.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, telephone: (202)
493-0440, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection
activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C.
3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On December 18, 2020, FRA
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register soliciting comment on
the ICR for which it is now seeking OMB approval. See 85 FR 82577. FRA
received no comments related to the proposed collection of information.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve the proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30 days for public comment. Federal law
requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and
60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5
CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995). OMB
believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated community to file
relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to digest public
comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983 (Aug. 29, 1995).
Therefore, respondents should submit their respective comments to OMB
within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques

or other forms of information technology.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Occupational Noise Exposure for Railroad Operating
Employees.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0571.
    Abstract: Title 49 CFR part 227 contains requirements for
occupational noise exposure. FRA uses the collection of information to
ensure that railroads covered by this rule establish and implement
noise monitoring, hearing conservation, and audiometric testing
programs to protect their employees against the harmful effects of
excessive noise in the workplace. Additionally, railroads must maintain
testing and training records on noise and hearing conservation.
Further, railroads must make exposure measurement records for specific
locations available to regional or national labor representatives upon
request.
    Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in
estimates) of a currently approved collection.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this 30-day notice, FRA corrects its previous
characterization of this type of request as an ``extension with
change (estimates) of a currently approved collection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Businesses (Railroads, railroads equipment
manufacturers).
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 512 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 159,927.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 3,980 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$316,871.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that a respondent is not required to
respond to, conduct, or sponsor a collection of information that does
not display a currently valid OMB control number.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2021-08181 Filed 4-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 70658]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-2941-000]

Talen Conemaugh LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Talen Conemaugh LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 24, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: October 4, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22473 Filed 10-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 67)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17461-17463]
[DOCID:fr09ap07-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0772; FRL-8296-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Minnesota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
Specifically, the revisions involve Flint Hills Resources, L.P. (Flint
Hills) of Dakota County, Minnesota. In these revisions, Flint Hills is
expanding operations at its petroleum refinery. To account for the
increased SO2 emissions from the expansion, Flint Hills is
closing its sulfuric acid plant. An analysis of the revisions shows
that the area air quality will be protected. Minnesota has also
included additional monitoring requirements in the revisions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0772, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0772. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site 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 e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail 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
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://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 material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312)
886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer,
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Is EPA Proposing?
III. What Is the Background for This Action?
IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?
V. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?
VI. What Action Is EPA Taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing approval of revisions to SO2 emission
limits at the Flint Hills facility. Minnesota submitted its Findings
and Order Amendment Eight on July 24, 2006. Flint Hills is expanding
operations at its petroleum refinery. This expansion includes adding a
new heater, emissions unit 25H-4. Modifications to two heaters, 25H-1
and 25H-3, are also allowed. Potential SO2 emissions from
the new heater and the two modified heaters are restricted by the 878
tons per year facility-wide limit on fuel gas combustion units.
    Minnesota is also requiring Flint Hills to install a continuous
monitor on either the fuel gas from the 45 mix drum or the heater
firing that fuel gas. The monitor will measure reduced sulfur in the
fuel gas or SO2 emissions exhausting from the heater.

III. What Is the Background for This Action?

    Flint Hills operates a petroleum refinery in the Minneapolis-Saint
Paul metropolitan area. Flint Hills is expanding its crude oil
processing operations. The expansion will increase the crude oil unit's
gasoline production capacity from 100,000 to 150,000 barrels per day.
Minnesota amended its Findings and Order to allow the revisions
necessary for the expansion. This is the eighth amendment to the Flint
Hills Findings and Order.
    Minnesota held a public hearing regarding Findings and Order
Amendment Eight on May 25, 2006. No comments on the Flint Hills
revisions were received at the public meeting or during the 30-day
public comment period.

IV. What Is EPA's Analysis of the State Submission?

    Minnesota included air dispersion modeling results in its
submission. The modeling analysis includes all Flint Hills
SO2 emissions sources, including the additional and modified
sources. Other significant SO2 sources in the area were also
included. The modeling analysis examined the impact of the revisions on
the SO2 air quality standards. The primary SO2
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) has both an annual and
24-hour averaging period. The secondary NAAQS has a 3-hour averaging
period.
    Flint Hills used the ISCST3 dispersion model in the regulatory
mode. Five years of surface meteorological data from the Minneapolis-
Saint Paul International Airport and upper air data from Saint Cloud
were used. Building downwash effects from the new and existing
structures were accounted for in the modeling. The analysis found that
the predicted annual SO2 concentration is 38.5 [mu]g/m\3\
compared to the standard of 80 [mu]g/m\3\. The modeled 24-hour level of
266.8 [mu]g/m\3\ is under the 365 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS. Similarly, the
predicted 3-hour average is 726.2 [mu]g/m\3\ which is under the
secondary standard of 1300 [mu]g/m\3\.

V. What Are the Environmental Effects of This Action?

    Sulfur dioxide causes breathing difficulties and aggravation of
existing cardiovascular disease. It is also a precursor of acid rain
and fine particulate matter formation. Sulfate particles are a major
cause of visibility impairment in America. Acid rain damages lakes and
streams impairing aquatic life and causes damage to buildings,
sculptures, statues, and monuments. Sulfur dioxide also causes the loss
of chloroform leading to vegetation damage.
    The expansion of the Flint Hills facility includes an additional
source and revised limits on several sources that results in higher
SO2 emissions. The projected increase in SO2
emissions from this project is 315 tons per year. However, overall
SO2 emissions from Flint Hills have been reduced. When
considering all sources at the facility there is no increase in
SO2 emissions, in fact there is a projected decrease of 99.6
tons per year. Therefore, the ``net emissions increase'' is below the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) significant threshold for
SO2 of 40 tons per year. This project is not subject to PSD
requirements.
    The effects of the expansion were analyzed. Both the projected
SO2 emissions from the Flint Hills facility and the
reductions from other area facilities were considered. That analysis
showed that the maximum predicted ambient SO2 concentrations
are below the primary and secondary NAAQS. This indicates that public
health and welfare in Dakota County, Minnesota should be protected. The
additional monitoring requirements placed on the heater combusting the
fuel gas from the 45 mix drum will also help protect the air quality.

VI. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve revisions to SO2 emissions
regulations for Flint Hills Resources, L.P. of Dakota County,
Minnesota. The revisions authorize adding a new heater, modifying two
heaters, and additional monitoring.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant regulatory action,'' this
action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, requires Federal agencies to use
technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 19, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E7-6619 Filed 4-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62881-62884]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24553]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70599; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2013-77]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rule 341A To
Specify Applicable Continuing Education Requirements, Amending the NYSE
Amex Options Fee Schedule To Specify Corresponding CE Fees and To
Specify Fees for the Series 56 Examination

October 2, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on September 19, 2013, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. NYSE MKT has designated the proposed rule change as
constituting a non-controversial rule change under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) \4\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \5\ thereunder,
which renders the filing 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\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 341A to specify applicable
continuing education (``CE'') requirements, (ii) [sic] amend the NYSE
Amex Options Fee Schedule (``Fee Schedule'') to specify corresponding
CE fees, and (iii) amend the Fee Schedule to specify fees for the
Series 56 examination. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to (i) amend Rule 341A to specify applicable
CE requirements, (ii) amend the Fee Schedule to specify corresponding
CE fees, and (iii) amend the Fee Schedule to specify fees for the
Series 56 examination.
CE Requirements
    Rule 341A(a) states that no member or member organization may
permit any registered person to continue to, and no registered person
may continue to, perform duties as a registered person unless such
person has complied with the CE requirements of the rule. Rule 341A
specifies the CE requirements for registered persons subsequent to
their initial qualification and registration. The requirements consist
of a Regulatory Element and a Firm Element.\6\ The Regulatory Element
is a computer-based education program administered by the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA''), on behalf of the
Securities Industry Council on Continuing Education, to help ensure
that registered persons are kept up to date on regulatory, compliance,
and sales practice matters in the industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Currently, the Firm Element applies to any registered person
who has direct contact with customers in the conduct of the member's
or member organization's securities sales, trading or investment
banking activities, and to the immediate supervisors of such persons
(collectively called ``covered registered persons''). See Rule
341A(b)(1). The requirement stipulates that each member or member
organization must maintain a continuing and current education
program for its covered registered persons to enhance their
securities knowledge, skills, and professionalism. Each member and
member organization has the requirement to annually evaluate and
prioritize its training needs and develop a written training plan.
See Rule 341A(b)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are currently three existing Regulatory Element programs: (1)
The S201 (``S201 CE Program'') for registered principals (e.g., General
Securities Principals and Limited Principals) and supervisors; (2) the
S106 (``S106 CE Program'') for persons registered only as Investment
Company Products/Variable Contracts Limited Representatives; and (3)
the S101 (``S101 CE Program'') for all other registered persons (e.g.,
General Securities Representatives). The Exchange proposes to enumerate
these existing programs in subsection (1) of Rule 341A(a).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Rule 341A(a)(1) currently includes existing rule text. Rule
341A(a)(1)-(3) would therefore be renumbered as Rule 341A(a)(2)-(4),
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to specify the new S501 (``S501 CE
Program,'' and together with the S201, S106 and S101 CE Programs, ``CE
Programs'') for persons registered only as Proprietary Traders.\8\ This
would include registered Proprietary Traders who have successfully
completed the Proprietary Traders Examination (``Series 56
Examination'') \9\ as well as registered Proprietary Traders who have
completed the General Securities Registered Representative Examination
(``Series 7 Examination''), but who have

only registered as Proprietary Traders.\10\ Individuals who maintain
any other registration would be subject to the CE Program associated
with such other registration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A Proprietary Trader is any person engaged in the purchase
or sale of securities or other similar instruments for the account
of a member or member organization with which he or she is
associated, as an employee or otherwise, and who does not transact
any business with the public. The term ``Proprietary Trader'' does
not include a person who is required to be registered as a Market
Maker in accordance with Rule 921NY or a Market Maker Authorized
Trader in accordance with in Rule 921.1NY. See Commentary .01 to
Rule 341.
    \9\ The Exchange previously amended its rules to prescribe the
Series 56 Examination as the qualifying examination for registered
Proprietary Traders. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66453
(February 23, 2012), 77 FR 12345 (February 29, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-
2012-11). The Exchange stated in that proposal that it intended to
submit a separate filing in the future to apply CE requirements to
such persons. See id. at 12346, note 11.
    \10\ For purposes of this filing, ``registration'' refers to the
operational/functional registration status in FINRA's Central
Registration Depository (``CRD[supreg]'') (e.g., Proprietary Trader
or General Securities Representative), not the qualification
examination(s) that a registered person has completed (e.g., the
Series 56 Examination or the Series 7 Examination).
     Persons accepting orders from non-member customers (unless such
customer is a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'')) must successfully complete the
Series 7 Examination. See Rule 920.06. However, an individual who
has successfully completed the Series 7 Examination who does not
conduct business with the public is permitted to register as a
Proprietary Trader, either exclusively or concurrently with
registration as a General Securities Representative, without
successfully completing the Series 56 Examination, which would be
redundant.
    If a person initially qualified as a Proprietary Trader by
taking the Series 7 Examination or otherwise previously maintained
both Series 7 and Series 56 qualifications, but was only maintaining
a Proprietary Trader registration when the CE requirement became
due, then completion of the S501 CE Program by such person would
satisfy his or her then-applicable CE requirement. However, upon re-
registering thereafter as a General Securities Representative, such
individual would be required to complete the S101 CE Program the
next time he or she became subject to CE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The S501 CE Program is a computer-based education program developed
by many of the self-regulatory organizations (``Participating SROs'')
\11\ and administered by FINRA to ensure that registered persons are
kept current on regulatory, compliance, and trading practice matters in
the industry. Unlike the other CE Programs, the S501 CE Program is not
part of the Uniform Continuing Education Program, which is developed
and maintained by the Securities Industry Regulatory Council on
Continuing Education. However, the S501 CE Program would logistically
operate as the current CE Programs do. Specifically, registered persons
would be required, through CRD, to complete the Regulatory Element of
the S501 CE Program on the second anniversary of the base date and then
every three years thereafter. In creating the S501 CE Program, the
Participating SROs determined that the current procedures of the other
CE Programs work well. The Securities Industry Regulatory Council on
Continuing Education has tailored the process of the other CE Programs
since their inception in a manner that has been successful. Thus, as
proposed, the S501 CE Program would work in the same manner. In
addition, consistency between the different programs would avoid
creating confusion among the registered persons and FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Participating SROs that have assisted with the
development of, and plan to administer, the Series 56 Examination
and S501 CE Program are the Exchange; C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated (``C2''); Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE''); Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX''); New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE''); NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSEArca''); The NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ''); National Stock Exchange, Inc.
(``NSX''); NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX''); NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC
(``PHLX''); BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BATS Y''); BATS Exchange, Inc.
(``BATS''); EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''); EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX''); International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''); BOX
Options Exchange, LLC (``BOX''); and Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed, registered Proprietary Traders would also be required
to complete the Firm Element outlined in Rule 341A(b). Although
registered Proprietary Traders, including those who have passed the
Series 56 Examination, do not interact with the public, the Exchange
believes that this requirement is appropriate because it ensures that
these registered Proprietary Traders continue to enhance their
securities knowledge, skill, and professionalism. As stated in Rule
341A(b)(2)(ii), the program should be tailored to fit the business of
the member or member organization. Thus, the Exchange believes that it
is appropriate that registered Proprietary Traders also complete the
Firm Element.
    The introduction of the S501 CE Program would allow the Exchange to
tailor its CE requirements more closely to those individuals who are
registered only as Proprietary Traders. More specifically, the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change would allow persons registered
only as Proprietary Traders to complete a CE Program separate from
persons maintaining other registrations. For example, in comparison to
the Series 7 Examination, the Series 56 Examination is more closely
tailored to the practice of proprietary trading while the Series 7
Examination is more comprehensive. As such, the Exchange believes that
the S501 CE Program should also be closely tailored to proprietary
trading. If an individual remains registered in another capacity, such
as a General Securities Representative, the Exchange believes that it
is appropriate that such individual continue to be required to complete
the more comprehensive CE Program (i.e., the S101 CE Program). The
Exchange anticipates that the other Participating SROs will adopt, or
have adopted, rules requiring completion of the S501 CE Program for
registered Proprietary Traders.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70027 (July
23, 2013), 78 FR 45584 (July 29, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-076).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CE Fees
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to specify the CRD
session fees for the CE Programs described above, including the
existing CE Programs and the proposed new S501 CE Program.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to specify the existing $100
session fee associated with the existing CE Programs (i.e., the S201,
S106 and S101 CE Programs) and a new $60 session fee associated with
the new S501 CE Program.\13\ The Exchange anticipates that other
exchanges requiring completion of the S501 CE Program will similarly
implement corresponding fees. As with existing CE Program session fees,
only one $60 session fee would be charged through CRD for a registered
person completing the S501 CE Program, even if such registered person's
firm was a member of multiple exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Session'' refers to a registered person sitting for the
actual computer-based CE training. FINRA administers the CE Programs
on behalf of the Exchange. ATP Holders pay the related fees directly
to FINRA through CRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has determined that the $60 session fee is necessary
to administer the S501 CE Program. Specifically, the $60 session fee
will be used to fund the S501 CE Program administered to persons
registered only as Proprietary Traders who are required to complete the
S501 CE Program. The $60 session fee is less than the existing $100
session fee currently charged by FINRA through CRD for the existing CE
Programs, including the S101 CE Program, because the fees associated
with the existing CE Programs are utilized for both development and
administration, whereas the $60 session fee for the S501 CE Program
would only be used for the administration of the program. The costs
associated with the development of the S501 CE Program are included in
the Series 56 Examination fee. The Exchange anticipates that the other
Participating SROs will adopt, or have adopted, the same $60 session
fee applicable to completion of the S501 CE Program.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70064 (July
30, 2013), 78 FR 47469 (August 5, 2013) (SR-CBOE-2013-078).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Series 56 Examination Fees
    The Exchange previously amended its rules to prescribe the Series
56 Examination as the qualifying examination for registered Proprietary
Traders.\15\ The Exchange hereby proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to
specify a fee of $195 per registered

person that chooses to complete the Series 56 Examination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See supra note 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Fee Schedule does not currently set forth the examination fees
for other qualification examinations required or accepted by the
Exchange because these programs are within FINRA's jurisdiction. The
Series 56 Examination, however, is a limited registration category that
is not recognized by FINRA under its registration rules. However, as
with existing non-FINRA examinations, FINRA administers the Series 56
Examination and collects the $195 fee through CRD on behalf of the SROs
that developed and maintain the exam. Additionally, only one $195 fee
would be charged through CRD for a registered person completing the
Series 56 Examination, even if such registered person's firm was a
member of multiple exchanges. The Exchange anticipates that the other
Participating SROs will adopt, or have adopted, the same $195 fee
applicable to completion of the Series 56 Examination.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70163
(August 12, 2013), 78 FR 50120 (August 16, 2013) (SR-EDGA-2013-24).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to CE or related fees and the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that ATP Holders or their registered persons would have in
complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(c) of the
Act,\17\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(c)(3) of
the Act,\18\ in particular, which authorizes the Exchange to prescribe
standards of training, experience and competence for registered persons
of ATP Holders. The proposed rule change would specify the existing CE
requirements for registered persons of ATP Holders while also
specifying the new S501 CE Program requirement for registered
Proprietary Traders of ATP Holders. The Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is reasonable and sets forth the applicable CE
requirements for individuals required to register under Rule 341 and
will therefore contribute to ensuring that registered persons of ATP
Holders are properly trained. In this regard, the Exchange believes
that the S501 CE Program is the appropriate CE Program for persons
registered only as Proprietary Traders because the S501 CE Program is
specifically tailored toward proprietary trading. Individuals who
maintain any other registration would be required to complete the CE
Program associated with such other registration, even if simultaneously
registered as Proprietary Traders, because such other CE Program would
be more comprehensive and correspond to the other, more comprehensive
registration category. The Exchange also believes that the proposed
rule change is reasonable because the other Participating SROs are
anticipated to adopt, or have adopted, rules requiring completion of
the S501 CE Program for registered Proprietary Traders.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
    \19\ See supra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,\20\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\21\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers. The Exchange believes
that the proposed $60 session fee is reasonable. While it is less than
the existing $100 session fee currently charged by FINRA through CRD
for the existing CE Programs, including the S101 CE Program, the fees
associated with the existing CE Programs are utilized for both
development and administration, whereas the $60 session fee for the
S501 CE Program would only be used for the administration of the
program. The costs associated with the development of the S501 CE
Program are included in the Series 56 Examination fee. The Exchange
also believes that the fee is reasonable because the other
Participating SROs are anticipated to adopt, or have adopted, the same
$60 session fee applicable to completion of the S501 CE Program.\22\
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable
because it will specify the existing $100 session fee applicable to
registered persons of ATP Holders who are subject to CE requirements,
which is collected by FINRA through CRD. Finally, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all registered persons of ATP Holders that are
subject to CE requirements would be treated the same, as is currently
the case. Therefore, any registered person of an ATP Holder that is
required to complete the S501 CE Program would be subject to the
corresponding $60 session fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \22\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to include the Series
56 Examination fee within the Fee Schedule to make the cost of this
examination clear to ATP Holders. The proposed fee is reasonably
designed to allow FINRA to cover its cost of administering the Series
56 Examination on behalf of the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
the proposed $195 Series 56 Examination fee is also reasonable because
it is designed to reflect the costs of maintaining and developing the
Series 56 Examination, as well as the development of the S501 CE
Program, and to ensure that the examination's content is, and continues
to be, adequate for testing the competence and knowledge generally
applicable to proprietary trading. The Exchange also believes that the
fee is reasonable because the Exchange anticipates that the other
Participating SROs will adopt, or have adopted, the same $195 fee
applicable to completion of the Series 56 Examination.\23\ Finally, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all registered persons of ATP Holders
that wish to be registered as Proprietary Traders would be treated the
same, as is currently the case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See supra note 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\24\ 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. Specifically, the Exchange does not believe
that the proposed administrative changes (i.e., specifying the existing
CE Programs and related fees), the introduction of the S501 CE Program
and related fee, or the introduction of the Series 56 Examination fee
will affect intermarket competition because the Exchange anticipates
that the other Participating SROs will similarly adopt, or have
adopted, rules requiring completion of the S501 CE Program for
registered Proprietary Traders, the same $60 session fee applicable to
completion of the S501 CE Program and the same $195 fee applicable to
completion of the Series 56 Examination.\25\ In addition,

the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will affect
intramarket competition because all similarly situated registered
persons of ATP Holders, e.g., registered persons maintaining the same
categories of registration, are required to complete the same CE
Programs, the same qualification examinations, and are subject to the
same fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
    \25\ See supra notes 12, 14 and 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \26\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \27\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. Waiver of the operative delay would allow the Exchange
to modify its rules and implement the proposed rule change at once,
enabling its Members to comply with their continuing education
requirements in a timely manner, and thus is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the
Commission designates the proposal operative upon filing.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMkt-2013-77 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMkt-2013-77. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).

    Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMkt-2013-77 and
should be submitted on or before November 12, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24553 Filed 10-21-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72402-72403]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30209]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-419-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Refile Letter Agreement for Casa Diablo 4 Project with
Mammoth Pacific to be effective 8/14/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111116-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 12/7/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-420-000.
    Applicants: Consumers Energy Company.
    Description: Cancellation of Facilities Agreement with MCV to be
effective 10/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111116-5001.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 12/7/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-421-000.
    Applicants: Heritage Garden Wind Farm I, LLC.
    Description: Application for Market-Based Rate Authority to be
effective 12/31/2011.

    Filed Date: 11/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111116-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 12/7/2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-422-000.
    Applicants: New England Wind, LLC.
    Description: 20111116 baseline to be effective 1/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/16/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111116-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 12/7/2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RR12-1-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corp.
    Description: Petition for Approval of a Revision to the Rules of
Procedure of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation--
Correction to Section 1.3 of Appendix 4D.
    Filed Date: 11/14/2011.
    Accession Number: 20111114-5475.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET on 12/5/2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 16, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30209 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P