[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81645-81648]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32825]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76758; File No. SR-BATS-2015-118]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Proprietary Trader and Proprietary Trader Principal Registration
Categories, Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal
Registration Categories, and Establishing the Series 57 Examination

December 23, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b 4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 22, 2015, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to retire the Proprietary Trader and
Proprietary Trader Principal registration categories and to establish
the Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration
categories. The Exchange is also amending its rules to establish the
Series 57 examination as the appropriate qualification examination for
Securities Traders and deleting the rule referring to the S501
continuing education program currently applicable to Proprietary
Traders. The Exchange will announce the effective date of the proposed
rule change in a circular distributed to Members.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing herein to replace the Series 56 with the
Series 57 examination and to make various related changes to its
registration rules. Specifically, in response to the FINRA Amendments
(defined below), the Exchange is proposing to retire the Proprietary
Trader \5\ registration categories from its own registration rules
relating to securities trading activity. It is also therefore retiring
its Proprietary Trader Principal \6\ registration category. To take the
place of the retired registration categories, the Exchange is
establishing new Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal
registration categories. This filing is based upon and in response to
SR-FINRA-2015-017, which was recently approved by the Commission.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rule 2.5, Interpretation and Policy .01(f).
    \6\ Rule 2.5, Interpretation and Policy .01(d).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75783 (August 28,
2015), 80 FR 53369 (September 3, 2015) (approving SR-FINRA-2015-017)
referred to herein as the ``FINRA Amendments.'' According to the
release, FINRA's expected effective date for the FINRA Amendments is
January 4, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Securities Trader Registration Category
    Currently, under Exchange Rule 11.4(e), each person associated with
a member who is included within the definition of an ``Authorized
Trader'' in Rule 1.5(d) is required to register with the Exchange and
to pass an appropriate qualification examination before such
registration may become effective. The Exchange recognizes the
following qualification examinations as acceptable for purposes of
registration as an Authorized Trader: Series 7, Series 56, or one of
several foreign securities examination modules.
    Interpretation and Policy .01(f) of Exchange Rule 2.5 currently
provides that a person may register with the Exchange as a Proprietary
Trader if such person engages solely in proprietary trading, passes the
Series 56 examination and is an associated person of a proprietary
trading firm as defined in Interpretation and Policy .01(g) of Exchange
Rule 2.5. Therefore, pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .01 to
Exchange Rule 2.5, an individual meeting these criteria may register in
the Proprietary Trader category after passing the Series 56 examination
rather than as a General Securities Representative after passing the
Series 7

examination or equivalent foreign securities examination module.
    In consultation with FINRA and other exchanges, and in order to
harmonize the requirements for individuals engaged in trading
activities, the Exchange is now proposing to retire the Proprietary
Trader registration category. Similarly, the Exchange is proposing to
adopt a new Securities Trader registration category.
    Under Exchange Rules, as revised, each person associated with a
member who is included within the definition of Authorized Trader will
be required to register as a Securities Trader unless they instead
qualify based on the Series 7 examination or an equivalent foreign
securities examination module. Therefore, representatives who
previously qualified for Proprietary Trader registration will be
required to register as Securities Traders. Accordingly, the Exchange
is proposing to modify paragraph (f) of Interpretation and Policy .01
to reflect the new Securities Trader qualification as a permissible
registration for Authorized Traders of Members that engage solely in
trading on the Exchange on either an agency or principal basis. In
order to register as a Securities Trader, an applicant would be
required to have passed the new Securities Trader qualification
examination (Series 57) or a predecessor examination (i.e., the Series
56, as described below).
    A person registered as a Proprietary Trader in the Central
Registration Depository (CRD[supreg]) system on the effective date of
the proposed rule change will be grandfathered as a Securities Trader
without having to take any additional examinations and without having
to take any other actions. In addition, individuals who were registered
as Proprietary Traders in the CRD system prior to the effective date of
the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as Securities
Traders without having to take any additional examinations, provided
that no more than two years have passed between the date they were last
registered as a representative and the date they register as a
Securities Trader.
    Persons registered in the new category would be subject to the
continuing education requirements of Interpretation and Policy .02(e)
to Rule 2.5. The Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy
.02(e) by removing the option for Series 56 registered persons to
participate in the S501 Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing
education program in order to satisfy the Regulatory Element. The S501
Series 56 Proprietary Trader continuing education program is being
phased out along with the Series 56 Proprietary Trader qualification
examination. As a result, effective January 4, 2016, the S501 Series 56
Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56
registered persons will cease to exist. In place of the S501 Series 56
Proprietary Trader continuing education program for Series 56
registered persons, the Exchange proposes that Series 57 registered
persons be required to take the S101 General Program for Series 7 and
all other registered persons.
New Securities Trader Principal Registration Category
    Currently, under Interpretation and Policy .01(d), the Exchange
requires each Member to register ``Principals'' \8\ with the Exchange.
The Exchange requires the Series 24 examination to register as
Principal. The Exchange will also accept the New York Stock Exchange
Series 14 Compliance Official Examination in lieu of the Series 24 to
satisfy the Principal examination requirement for any person designated
as a Chief Compliance Officer. Further, in addition to the Series 24 or
Series 14, in order to supervise the activities of General Securities
Representatives a Principal generally must complete the Series 7 or an
equivalent foreign examination module as a prerequisite to the Series
24 or Series 14. However, the Exchange currently permits the Series 56
as a prerequisite to the Series 24 or Series 14 for those Principals
whose supervisory responsibilities are limited to overseeing the
activities of proprietary traders, as described above. Like the
Proprietary Trader category discussed above, the Proprietary Trader
Principal registration category is being retired. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to modify the references in the Rule regarding the
prerequisite to the Series 24 or 14 for an individual that will
supervise Series 57 qualified traders to correspond with the new
Securities Trader exam. The Exchange proposes to establish the
Securities Trader Principal category in Interpretation and Policy
.01(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pursuant to Interpretation and Policy .01(d) to Rule 2.5, a
Principal is ``any individual responsible for supervising the
activities of a Member's Authorized Traders and each person
designated as a Chief Compliance Officer on Schedule A of Form BD.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has been working with other exchanges and FINRA to
develop this new principal registration category and believes that it
is an appropriate corollary to the new Securities Trader representative
registration category. To qualify for registration as a Securities
Trader Principal, an applicant must become qualified and registered as
a Securities Trader under proposed Interpretation and Policy .01(c) and
pass either the Series 24 or Series 14 examination. A person who is
qualified and registered as a Securities Trader Principal would only be
permitted to have supervisory responsibility over the activities of
Securities Traders, unless such person were separately qualified and
registered in another appropriate principal registration category, such
as the General Securities Principal registration category. Conversely,
the proposed rule change clarifies that each principal who will have
supervisory responsibility over registered Securities Traders is
required to become qualified and registered as a Securities Trader
Principal.
    A person registered as a General Securities Principal and as a
Proprietary Trader Principal in the CRD system on the effective date of
the proposed rule change will be eligible to register as a Securities
Trader Principal without having to take any additional examinations. An
individual who was registered as a General Securities Principal and as
a Proprietary Trader Principal in the CRD system prior to the effective
date of the proposed rule change will also be eligible to register as a
Securities Trader Principal without having to take any additional
examinations, provided that no more than two years have passed between
the date they were last registered as a principal and the date they
register as a Securities Trader Principal. Members, however, will be
required to affirmatively register persons transitioning to the
proposed registration category as Securities Trader Principals on or
after the effective date of the proposed rule change.
Other Changes
    In order to accomplish the changes proposed above, the Exchange has
proposed modifications throughout Interpretation and Policy .01 and .02
to Rule 2.5 as well as Rule 11.4(e) to eliminate references to
Proprietary Trader, Proprietary Trader Principal, and Series 56
examination and to replace such references with Securities Trader,
Securities Trader Principal and Series 57 examination. The Exchange
also proposes to modify Rule 11.6, which sets forth the registration
requirements applicable to Market Maker Authorized Traders, or MMATs,
to cross-reference Interpretation and Policy .01 and .02. Although Rule
11.6 currently requires an MMAT to qualify by taking the Series 7
examination, the Exchange does not intend to impose

different registration or continuing education requirements on MMATs
than are required of Authorized Traders generally. In addition to these
changes, the Exchange proposes to delete paragraph (h) to
Interpretation .01, which currently states that: ``Principals
responsible for supervising the activities of General Securities
Representatives must successfully complete the Series 7 or an
equivalent foreign examination module in addition to the Series 24.''
The Exchange proposes to eliminate this provision as duplicative with
existing language in Interpretation and Policy .01, including paragraph
(d), which states that ``[i]ndividuals that supervise the activities of
General Securities Representatives must successfully complete the
Series 7 or an equivalent foreign examination module as a prerequisite
to the Series 24 or Series 14 and shall be referred to as General
Securities Principals.'' The Exchange also proposes to modify a
reference in Interpretation and Policy .01(e) from ``General Securities
Representative Principal'' to ``General Securities Principal.'' In
addition, the Exchange proposes to eliminate the fees applicable to the
Series 56 examination as well as the fees associated with the
continuing education necessary to maintain registration after passing
the Series 56 examination. Consistent with all other examinations
recognized by the Exchange, FINRA will administer the Series 57
examination and the continuing education requirements related thereto,
and the Exchange will not be separately charging and collecting any
fees in order to take such examination or participate in applicable
continuing education. Finally, in order to continue to align the
Exchange's rules with the rules of its affiliated exchanges, the
Exchange proposes to adopt descriptive headings in Interpretation and
Policy .02 to Rule 2.5 based on Interpretation and Policy .02 to Rule
2.5 of the rules of EDGA Exchange, Inc. and EDGX Exchange, Inc. and to
modify the language, but not the substance, of Rule 11.4(e).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ which requires, among other things, that
the Exchange's rules be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in
facilitating transactions in securities, and to remove impediments to
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system. The Exchange believes that the requirements of the
Securities Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration
categories, as well as the new Securities Trader qualification
examination, should help ensure that proprietary traders and the
principals who supervise proprietary traders and proprietary trading
are, and will continue to be, properly trained and qualified to perform
their functions which should protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Implementation of the proposed
changes to the Exchange's registration rules in coordination with the
FINRA Amendments does not present any competitive issues, but rather is
designed to provide less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance for members and enhance the ability of the Exchange to
fairly and efficiently regulate members, which will further enhance
competition. Additionally, the proposed rule change should not affect
intramarket competition because all similarly situated representatives
and principals will be required to complete the same qualification
examinations and maintain the same registrations.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on
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: (A)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (B) impose any significant burden on competition; and (C) by
its terms, 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) of the Act \10\ and
paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\11\ the Exchange has
designated this rule filing as non-controversial. The Exchange has
given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed
rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed
rule change at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the thirty-day
operative delay so that the proposal may become operative as of January
4, 2016. The Exchange states that waiving the thirty-day delay would
allow the Exchange to eliminate the Proprietary Trader and Proprietary
Trader Principal registration categories and adopt the Securities
Trader and Securities Trader Principal registration categories at the
same time as FINRA and the other national securities exchanges. The
Commission believes that waiving the thirty day delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest, as it will
enable BATS to have the new requirements in effect at the same time as
the other SROs. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the thirty-day
operative delay and designates the proposal operative as of January 4,
2016.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For purposes 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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be
approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BATS-2015-118 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2015-118. 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 such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BATS-2015-118 and should be
submitted on or before January 20, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-32825 Filed 12-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53308-53309]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19148]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464; FRL-9950-49-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Louisiana; Interstate Transport of Air Pollution for the 2008 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is disapproving the
portion of a Louisiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which will
significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance
of the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in
other states. Disapproval will establish a 2-year deadline, under Clean
Air Act (CAA) Section 110(c), for the EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Louisiana to address the CAA interstate
transport requirements pertaining to significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in other states, unless the EPA approves a SIP that meets these
requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock
for Louisiana.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2013-0464. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information 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. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherry Fuerst<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    This rulemaking addresses an infrastructure SIP submittal from the
State of Louisiana addressing, among other things, the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), also known as the good neighbor
provision, with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The background for
this action is discussed in detail in our June 7, 2016 proposal (81 FR
36496). In that action we proposed to disapprove the portion of the
June 4, 2013 Louisiana SIP submittal pertaining to CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which requires that the State prohibit the
interstate transport of air pollution which will significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008
ozone NAAQS in other states.
    In proposing to disapprove the State's SIP submittal as to the good
neighbor provision, we noted two specific deficiencies in the Louisiana
submission. First, Louisiana cited the State's approved Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) SIP as support for its conclusion that the State
satisfied its section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligation with respect to the
2008 ozone NAAQS. However, as explained in our proposal, CAIR was
invalidated by the D.C. Circuit in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896
(2008). Even if Louisiana could rely on its CAIR SIP the modeling and
rulemaking conducted for both CAIR, or its successor, the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) addressed the
1997 ozone NAAQS, not the more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS at issue in
this action. Because the Louisiana submittal addressed by this action
concerns the State's interstate transport obligations for a different
and more stringent standard (the 2008 ozone NAAQS), we stated it is not
sufficient to merely cite to older EPA or state implemented programs as
evidence of compliance with the current 2008 ozone NAAQS. Second, the
State's submittal lacked any technical analysis evaluating or
demonstrating whether emissions in Louisiana impacts air quality in
another state. As such, we proposed that the submittal did not provide
us with a basis to agree with the State's conclusion that the State
already has adequate provisions in the SIP to address CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We did not
receive any comments regarding our proposal.

II. Final Action

    EPA is disapproving a portion of a June 4, 2013 SIP submittal from
Louisiana pertaining to interstate transport of air pollution which
will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in other states. Disapproval will
establish a 2-year deadline, under the CAA Section 110(c), for the EPA
to promulgate a FIP for Louisiana to address the CAA interstate
transport requirements pertaining to significant contribution to
nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS
in other states, unless the EPA approves a SIP that meets these
requirements. Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock
for Louisiana pursuant to CAA section 179 because this action does not
pertain to a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This final action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because it is not categorized as ``significant'' under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866 and therefore was not submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This final action does not impose an information collection burden
under the PRA because it does not contain any information collection
activities.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely disapprove a SIP submission as not meeting the CAA.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no

enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it merely disapproves a SIP submission as
not meeting the CAA.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by
this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous populations. This action merely disapproves a SIP submission
as not meeting the CAA.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 11, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, and Ozone.

    Dated: July 29, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. Section 52.996 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.996  Disapprovals.

    (a) The portion of the SIP submitted on June 4, 2013 addressing
Clean Air Act section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS is
disapproved.
    (b) [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 2016-19148 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 141)]
[Notices]
[Page 42558]
[DOCID:fr22jy08-33]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13242-000]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comment, Motions to Intervene, and Competing Applications

July 11, 2008.
    On June 13, 2008, Whitman River Dam, Inc. filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to develop
the hydroelectric potential at the existing Westminster Reservoir Pond
Dam located on the Whitman River in the Town of Westminster, Worcester
County, Massachusetts.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An earthen and masonry
dam, 31-foot-high and 1,500-foot-long, (2) a head pond with storage of
870.0 acre-feet, (3) two existing 30-inch diameter discharge pipes, and
(4) a new powerhouse located in the vicinity of the discharge pipes
containing one generating unit having a capacity of 35 kilowatts. The
project would have an annual generation of 218,000 kilowatt hours and
would be sold to power marketers, local industrial users, or municipal
electric utilities.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Robert Francis, President, Whitman River
Dam, Inc., P.O. Box 145, 10 Tommy Francis Road, Westminster, MA 01473.
FERC Contact: Shameek Patel,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13242) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-16703 Filed 7-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 56 (Friday, March 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10817-10818]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05505]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR14-6-002]

BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska,
Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company; Notice Affording the Parties an
Opportunity To File Pleadings

    1. On April 20, 2018, Petro Star, Inc. filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) a
petition for review of the Commission's order in BP Pipelines (Alaska)
Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil
Pipeline Company, 162 FERC ] 61,147 (2018). On March 6, 2019, the
Commission filed an unopposed motion for voluntary remand of the above-
captioned proceeding.\1\ The Voluntary Remand Motion stated: ``To help
inform the Commission's decision on remand, the parties may file with
the Commission, within 60 days of a Court order granting this motion,
pleadings setting forth the parties' respective positions concerning
(1) the scope of issues properly before the agency on voluntary remand,
and (2) the procedures to be employed by the agency in addressing those
issues. The Commission will also permit the parties to file responsive
pleadings within 30 days after the initial pleadings.'' \2\ The D.C.
Circuit granted the Voluntary Remand Motion on March 7, 2019.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ PetroStar, Inc. v. FERC, Unopposed Motion of Respondent
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for Voluntary Remand, No. 18-
1104 (filed Mar. 6, 2019) (Voluntary Remand Motion).
    \2\ Id. at 2-3.
    \3\ PetroStar, Inc. v. FERC, No. 18-1104, Order (issued Mar. 7,
2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Accordingly, the parties are hereby afforded the opportunity to
file initial pleadings with the Commission by May 6, 2019. The parties
may file responsive

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
pleadings with the Commission by June 5, 2019.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-05505 Filed 3-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45252-45254]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18392]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75504; File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2015-01]

Consolidated Tape Association; Order Approving the Twenty Second
Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and
Sixteenth Substantive Amendment to the Restated CQ Plan

July 22, 2015.

I. Introduction

    On April 27, 2015, the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'') Plan
and Consolidated Quotation (``CQ'') Plan participants (collectively the
``Participants'') \1\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') pursuant to Section 11A of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\3\ a
proposal to amend the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan and Restated
CQ Plan (collectively, the ``Plans'').\4\The proposals represent the
22nd Substantive Amendment to the CTA Plan and 16th Substantive
Amendment to the CQ Plan (collectively ``the Amendments''), and reflect
changes unanimously adopted by the Participants. The Amendments would
require the Participants to include timestamps in the trade-report and
bid-and-offer information that they report to the Plans' processor. The
proposed Amendments were published for comment in the Federal Register
on

May 14, 2015.\5\ The Commission received one comment letter in response
to the Notice.\6\ On July 17, 2015, the Participants to the Plan
responded to the comment letter.\7\ This order approves the proposed
Amendments to the Plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Participants are: BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS''), BATS-Y
Exchange, Inc. (``BATS-Y''), Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc.
(``CBOE''), EDGA Exchange, Inc. (``EDGA''), EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX''), Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE''),
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``Nasdaq BX''), NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``Nasdaq
PSX''), Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq''), National Stock
Exchange (``NSX''), New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), NYSE MKT
LLC (``NYSE MKT''), and NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'').
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \3\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (May 20, 1974) (declaring the CTA Plan
effective); 15009 (July 28, 1978), 43 FR 34851 (August 7, 1978)
(temporarily authorizing the CQ Plan); and 16518 (January 22, 1980),
45 FR 6521 (January 28, 1980) (permanently authorizing the CQ Plan).
The most recent restatement of both Plans was in 1995. The CTA Plan,
pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price
information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction
reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR
242.608. The CQ Plan, pursuant to which markets collect and
disseminate bid/ask quotation information for listed securities, is
a ``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17
CFR 242.608.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74909 (May 8, 2015),
80 FR 27764 (``Notice'').
    \6\ See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate Director, SIFMA, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated June 5, 2015 (``SIFMA Letter'') commenting on this
proposal as well as the parallel amendment to the UTP Plan.
    \7\ See Letter from Emily Kasparov, Chairman, CTA Plan Operating
Committee to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated July 17,
2015 (``Response Letter'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, Section VI(c) of the CTA Plan requires transaction
reports that the Participants submit to the Processor to include the
stock symbol, the number of shares, and the price of the transaction.
Section VI(a) of the CQ Plan provides that each bid and offer that a
Participant reports to the Processor under the CQ Plan must include the
bid or offer's quotation size or aggregate quotation size.
    The Amendments propose to require Participants to include in
reports to the Processor the time of the trade or the quotation. In the
case of a Participant that is a national securities exchange, the time
of the transaction or quotation is to be reported in microseconds as
identified in the Participant's matching engine publication timestamp.
In the case of FINRA, the time of a transaction will be the time of
execution that a FINRA member reports to a FINRA trade reporting
facility and the time of a bid or offer will be the quotation
publication timestamp that the bidding or offering member reports to
the FINRA quotation facility, all in accordance with FINRA rules.\8\ In
addition, if a FINRA trade reporting facility or quotation facility
provides a proprietary feed of trades or quotes reported by the
facility to the Processor, then the FINRA facility must also furnish
the Processor with the time of the transmission as published on the
facility's proprietary feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ If a FINRA member reports to it in seconds or milliseconds,
FINRA must convert the times to microseconds and must furnish the
Processor the reports in microseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Comment Letter and Participants' Response

    The Commission received one comment letter on the proposed
Amendments and a response to that comment letter from the Participants.
The commenter supports the proposed Amendments, but suggested
clarifications to certain aspects of the Amendments.
    First, in order to ensure that sourcing and reporting of timestamp
data would be consistent across exchanges, the commenter recommended
that the Amendments provide a clearer definition of ``matching engine
publication timestamp.'' \9\ The commenter stated that the term
``matching engine publication timestamp'' is not defined in the Plans
or in the proposal, and is not a commonly understood term.\10\ The
commenter suggested that the transaction time to be reported to the
Securities Information Processors (``SIPs'') should be the timestamp
applied when the trade is executed in the exchange's matching engine,
and the quotation time should be the timestamp applied when the
quotation is added to the exchange's order book.\11\ The commenter
further stated that the timestamp reported by the exchange should
reflect the actual underlying matching engine event, and not any
internal processing that may occur at the exchange before submission to
the SIPs.\12\ In response to the comment that the ``matching engine
publication timestamps'' be more clearly defined, the Participants
stated that the purpose of the Amendments is to respond to the
Commission's request to provide information allowing market
participants to compare proprietary data feed latency to consolidated
data feed latency.\13\ The Participants noted that they devoted
considerable effort and resources to expedite this timestamp initiative
at Chair White's request. The Participants use the proposed term of
``matching engine publication timestamps'' to connote the timestamp
published by each Participant's matching engine. The Participants
believe that the proposal will provide transparency that will enable
market participants to compare the latency between the proprietary data
feed and the consolidated data feed, which the Participants believe the
industry will find most useful.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \10\ Id.
    \11\ Id.
    \12\ Id.
    \13\ See Response Letter at 2-3.
    \14\ See Response Letter 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the commenter stated that the proposed Amendments should
provide clarity on the timestamp information that FINRA would be
required to provide to the SIPs.\15\ As proposed, any FINRA proprietary
data feed of trades or quotes reported by the FINRA trade reporting
facility (``TRF'') to the SIPs would be required to furnish the SIPs
with the time of the transmission as published on the proprietary
feeds. The commenter suggested that the Amendments should require the
FINRA TRF or quotation facility to provide to the SIPs the timestamp
when the trade or quote was processed by the FINRA facility regardless
of whether the facility offers a proprietary feed.\16\ In response, the
Participants stated that additional timestamps for non-proprietary
FINRA feeds would not provide meaningful information to market
participants because they would not enable a market participant to
compare the time that a Participant transmits information via a
proprietary feed to the time the SIP transmits the same
information.\17\ Additionally, the Participants stated that FINRA TRFs
or quotation facilities should not include intermediate processing
timestamps because such additional timestamps go beyond the scope of
the Amendments' objectives and that requiring these additions would be
costly and time consuming.\18\ The Participants noted that additional
timestamps would delay the rollout of the timestamp initiative
considerably, impose a significant cost on the industry, require
specialized equipment, add significant bandwidth requirements, and
result in an array of timestamps that would likely lead to confusion
within the industry.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See SIFMA Letter at 1, 3.
    \16\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \17\ See Response Letter at 3.
    \18\ See Response Letter at 3-4.
    \19\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the commenter believes that the SIPs should be
responsible for market-wide determinations of whether a trade is
reported out of sequence and not last sale eligible.\20\ The commenter
suggested that the SIPs should make market-wide determinations if
transactions are out of sequence by comparing the incoming
transaction's execution time against the execution time of the most
recent transaction that was last sale eligible and published. The
Participants stated that the Participants have historically determined
last sale elgibility and out of sequence reporting pursuant to their
own rules \21\ and believe that such determinations should continue to
be made by the Participants consistent with their respective rules.\22\

In addition, the Participants noted that this suggestion is outside the
scope of the Amendments.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
    \21\ See Response Letter at 4.
    \22\ The commenter also called for change in the governance
structure of NMS plans which it states is ineffective and opaque,
suggesting that governing bodies of NMS plans should include
representatives from broker-dealers, asset managers, and the public,
with each of these groups having voting power on the plans'
operating committees. See SIFMA Letter at 4. The Participants noted
that the Plans held numerous meetings to fashion the timestamp tools
including meetings among the Participants and Plan subcommittees,
Commission staff, and also involved consultation with industry
representatives from the Plan's Advisory Committees. See Response
Letter at 2.
    \23\ See Response Letter at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review and consideration of the proposed Amendments,
the comment letter, and the Response Letter, the Commission finds that
the proposed Amendments to the Plans are consistent with the
requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder,\24\
and, in particular, Section 11A(a)(1) of the Act \25\ and Rule 608
thereunder \26\ in that they are necessary or appropriate in the public
interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair
and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanisms of, a national market system. While supporting the timestamp
Amendments, the commenter raised three issues regarding the proposal--
the need to define the term ``matching engine publication timestamp''
more clearly, the need for additional timestamps, and a preference that
the SIPs determine whether a trade is reported out of sequence and not
last sale eligible. The commenter also believes that there is a need to
reform SIP governance. The Participants responded to the commenter's
concerns, as discussed above, indicating why they believe that the
proposal adequately addresses the issue it was meant to address--
providing additional information so that interested persons will be
able to measure the latency between the consolidated data feeds and
industry proprietary data feeds. The Participants stated that including
additional timestamps would delay implementation of the proposal, add
costs, and could be confusing. The Participants also indicated that
they continue to believe they should decide, consistent with their
rules, whether trades are reported out of sequence and not last sale
eligible. The Commission agrees with the Participants' response to the
issues raised by the comment letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The Commission has considered the proposed amendment's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
    \26\ 17 CFR 240.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposal is consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the
Act,\27\ which sets forth Congress' finding that it is in the public
interest and appropriate for the protection of investors and the
maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the availability to
brokers, dealers, and investors of information with respect to
quotations and transactions in securities. These goals are furthered by
the proposed changes requiring that Participants add timestamps to
their trade and quotation reports as this will add transparency
regarding the latencies between the CTA and CQ Plans' consolidated data
feeds and industry proprietary feeds. Users of the consolidated feeds
will be better able to monitor the latency of those feeds and to assess
whether such feeds meet their trading and other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act,\28\
and the rules thereunder, that the proposed Amendments to the CTA Plan
and CQ Plan (File No. SR-CTA/CQ-2015-01) are approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

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

    \29\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18392 Filed 7-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES DATE: March 27, 2001 SUBJECT: Oxadiazon. List B Reregistration Case 2485. PC Code 109001. Product Chemistry and Residue Chemistry Chapter for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision [ RED] Document. DP Barcode D273740.

FROM: Sheila Piper, Chemist Chemistry Exposure Branch Health Effects Division [ 7509C]

THRU: Francis B. Suhre, Branch Senior Scientist Chemistry Exposure Branch Health Effects Division [ 7509C]

TO: Nancy McCarroll, Risk Assessor Toxicology Branch Health Effects Division [ 7509C]

The Product Chemistry and Residue Chemistry databases for oxadiazon are complete. The registrant, Aventis Environmental Science USA is no longer supporting oxadiazon in or on food, feed, or residential uses ( Revocation Letter for Oxadiazon Tolerances, 1/ 24/ 01). Currently, the registrant is only supporting the use of oxadiazon on golf courses and ornamentals. The request for revocation of oxadiazon on food, feed or residential uses has been granted and tolerances will be revoked.

Attachments 1 and 2: Oxadiazon Product and Residue Chemistry RED Chapter cc: SF, RF, List B File, S. Piper RDI: F. B. Suhre: 3/ 23/ 01 7509C: CEB1: CM 2: Room 810F: 308 2717: Oxadiazon REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION PRODUCT CHEMISTRY CONSIDERATIONS PC Code 109001; Case 2485 ( DP Barcode D273104)

Oxadiazon [ 2 tert butyl 4( 2,4 dichloro 5 iospropoxyphenyl)

2 1,3,4 oxadiazolin 5 one] is a preemergence, early postemergence herbicide registered to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds.

Empirical formula: C 15 H 18 Cl 2 N 2 O 3 Molecular weight: 345.2 CAS Registry No.: 19666 30 9 PC Code: 109001 Oxadiazon A search of REFS conducted 2/ 14/ 01 identified a single oxadiazon MP registered under PC Code 109001, the Aventis Environmental Science USA LP 94 % technical [ T]; EPA Reg. No. 264 450. There are 47 active end use products. Only the Aventis 94% T is subject to a RED.

The product chemistry data base is complete. However, the current Confidential Statement of Formula [ CSF], dated 4/ 7/ 78, is inadequate. Nominal concentration and upper limit must be stated for all components. Additionally, the lower limit must be stated for the a. i. The CSF must be executed by the current registrant. The Series 830 physical and chemical properties are given in the table below: GLN MRID Data 6302 Color jacket white 6303 Physical state " crystalline powder 6304 Odor " odorless 7200 MP " 90 C 7300 Bulk density 41565701 1.3 g/ mL 7840 Water solubility jacket 0.0007 g/ L @ 20 C 7950 vp 41230301 7.76x10 7 mm Hg [ gas satn.]

7550 P ow 41230302 log P = 4.91 6313 Stability to normal and elevated temperatures, metals, and metal ions 41877601 stable for 30 days @ 55 C; stable in presence of aluminum, iron, & tin pwds. But > 5% loss in presence of ferric chloride. Bibliography 41565701 Chabassol, Y.; Hunt, G. [ 1990] Oxadiazon Specific Gravity and Density at 20 C: Study No. 89 15. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone Poulenc Ag Co. 16 p.

41230301 Hoffman, M. [ 1989] Vapor Pressure Determination of Oxadiazon: Project No. HLA 6001 372. Unpublished study prepared by Hazelton Labs. America, Inc. 71 p.

41230302 Seymour, R.; Hall, L. [ 1988] Octanol/ Water Partition Coefficient Determination for Oxadiazon; Report No. 40434. Unpublished study prepared by Rhone Poulenc Ag Co. 12 p.

41877601 Sanders, J. [ 1991] Oxadiazon, Technical  Determination of Stability; Lab. ID 4053 91 0061 AS. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 102 p.

OXADIAZON REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DECISION RESIDUE CHEMISTRY CONSIDERATIONS PC Code 109001; Case 2485 ( DP Barcode D273740)

TABLE OF CONTENTS page INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 REGULATORY BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 SUMMARY OF SCIENCE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GLN 860.1200: Directions for Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GLN 860.1300: Nature of the Residue  Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GLN 860.1300: Nature of the Residue  Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 GLN 860.1340: Residue Analytical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GLN 860.1360: Multiresidue Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GLN 860.1380: Storage Stability Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GLN 860.1500: Crop Field Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GLN 860.1520: Processed Food/ Feed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 GLN 860.1480: Meat, Milk, Poultry, Eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 GLN 860.1400: Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 GLN 860.1460: Food Handling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 GLNs 860.1850 and 860.1900: Confined/ Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops . . . 5 TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Tolerances Listed Under 40 CFR § 180.346 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 CODEX HARMONIZATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 DIETARY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 AGENCY MEMORANDA CITED IN THIS DOCUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 INTRODUCTION 2 Oxadiazon, ( 2 tert butyl 4( 2,4 dichloro 5 isopropoxyphenyl)

21,3,4 oxadiazolin 5 one) is a selective pre emergent and early post emergence herbicide that is effective primarily for the control of annual grasses and broadleaf weeds in turf. Oxadiazon is manufactured by Aventis CropScience USA, under the trade name Ronstar ® and formulations are available as emulsifiable concentrates, granules, flowable and wetable powders. The registrant are no longer supporting oxadiazon in or on food, feed or residential uses. Currently, the registrant is only supporting the use of oxadiazon on golf courses and ornamentals ( Revocation Letter for Oxadiazon Tolerances, 1/ 24/ 01).

REGULATORY BACKGROUND Oxadiazon is a list B reregistration chemical and was subject of a Phase III Review dated 1/ 3/ 90 ( C. Olinger). This document summarized regulatory conclusions on the available residue chemistry data and specified that additional data were not required for reregistration purposes. The information contained in this document outlines the current Residue Chemistry Science Assessments with respect to the reregistration of oxadiazon.

Tolerances have been established for combined residues of oxadiazon and its metabolites [ 2 tertbutyl 4( 2,4 dichloro 5 hydroxyphenyl)

21,3,4 oxadiazolin 5 one and 2 carboxyiso propyl 4( 4 dichloro) 5 isopropo xyphenyl)

21,3,4 oxadiazolin 5 one] in or on: rice straw ( 0.2 ppm); milk fat ( 0.1 ppm; reflecting negligible residues in milk); Brazil nuts, bush nuts, butternuts, cashews, chestnuts, crabapples, filbert, hazelnuts, hickory nuts, macadamia nuts, pears, pecans, pistachio nuts, quinces, rice grain, stone fruit and walnuts ( 0.05 ppm); and in the meat, fat, and meat byproducts of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep ( 0.01 ppm) [ 40 CFR § 180.346].

The HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee ( S. Piper, D272425, 2/ 13/ 01) has concluded that the parent compound, oxadiazon is the only residue to be included in a drinking water risk assessment. The chemical structure of oxadiazon is shown below:

SUMMARY OF SCIENCE FINDINGS GLN 860.1200: Directions for Use A REFS search, conducted on 2/ 14/ 01, identified a single oxadiazon MP registered under PC Code 109001, the Aventis 3 Environmental Science USA LP 94% technical [ T]; EPA Reg. No. 264 450. There are 47 active end use products, registered pesticide products under FIFRA with labeling claiming oxadiazon as the active ingredient. The use sites claimed on the labels of these products are non residential lawns ( turf) and ornamental plants. Three of the products are registered under 24( c) and the other 44 products are registered under Section 3 of FIFRA. Only the Aventis 94% is subject to a reregistration eligibility decision.

For the purpose of generating this Residue Chemistry Science Chapter, the Aventis will not support aerial application ( will put restriction on the Ronstar ® labels) or greenhouse useage ( already restricted on the Ronstar ® labels). Aventis will add these label restrictions to the products ( Ronstar ® 50% intermediate and Ronstar ® Technical) used by other registrants to formulate their own products. Details of the rates and application intervals are presented below:

$ Maximum of 4 lbs ai/ A per application per six month period.

$ If the 4 lbs is split, applications within the six month period must be 6 to 8 weeks apart.

$ Maximum of 8 lbs ai/ A per year or 4 lbs every six months.

GLN 860.1300: Nature of the Residue  Plants The qualitative nature of the residue in plants is not adequately understood. The registrant submitted an inadequate rice metabolism study. Furthermore, no data were available concerning the metabolism of oxadiazon in/ on crops representing orchard crops. The registrant has requested revocation of oxadiazon on food/ feed uses and tolerances will be revoked.

GLN 860.1300: Nature of the Residue  Animals The qualitative nature of the residue in animals is not adequately understood. The registrant submitted an inadequate ruminant metabolism study. Furthermore, no data on poultry were submitted. The registrant has requested revocation of oxadiazon on food/ feed uses and tolerances will be revoked.

GLN 860.1340: Residue Analytical Methods Adequate methodology is available for the enforcement of tolerances for residues of oxadiazon in or on plant and animal commodities. A GLC/ electron capture ( EC) method is included in Pesticide Analytical Manual ( PAM) Vol. II as Method 1 for analysis of oxadiazon residues in rice, soybeans, peanuts, onions, and potatoes ( Pesticide Reg. Sec, 180.346). A modified version of 4 Method III has also been used for analysis of residues in turf, nuts, and orchard fruit. Method III includes similar procedures for analysis of oxadiazon residues in milk and dairy cattle tissue.

GLN 860.1360: Multiresidue Methods The Pestrak data base dated 12/ 13/ 89 indicates that oxadiazon recovery is complete (> 80%) using Multiresidue Protocol D and either partial ( 50 80%; fatty foods) or complete ( non fatty foods) using Protocol E, and that the two metabolites of concern were included in the tolerance expression. The requirements to conduct multiresidue method trials with oxadiazon and its metabolites are waived.

GLN 860.1380: Storage Stability Data The registrant has requested revocation of oxadiazon on food/ feed uses and tolerances will be revoked. Therefore, reregistration requirements for storage stability data are waived for plant and animal commodities.

GLN 860.1500: Crop Field Trials The reregistration requirements for magnitude of the residue in/ on the following raw agricultural commodities ( RACs) have been waived: rice ( grain and straw), Brazil nuts, bush nuts, butternuts, cashews, chestnuts, crabapples, filberts, hazelnuts, hickory nuts, macadamia nuts, pears, pecans, pistachio nuts, quinces, stone fruits and walnuts. The registrant has requested revocation of oxadiazon on food/ feed uses and tolerances will be revoked.

GLN 860.1520: Processed Food/ Feed The registrant has requested revocation of oxadiazon on food/ feed uses and tolerances will be revoked. Therefore, reregistration requirements for magnitude of the residue in the processed commodities of plum ( dried prune) has been waived.

GLN 860.1480: Meat, Milk, Poultry, Eggs The reregistration requirements for magnitude of the residue in meat, milk, poultry, and eggs are waived. The registrant has requested revocation of oxadiazon on food/ feed uses and tolerances will be revoked.

GLN 860.1400: Water, Fish, and Irrigated Crops 5 Oxadiazon is presently not registered for direct use on water and aquatic food and feed crops; therefore, no residue chemistry data are required under this guideline topic.

GLN 860.1460: Food Handling Oxadiazon is presently not registered for use in food handling establishments; therefore, no residue chemistry data are required under this guideline topic.

GLNs 860.1850 and 860.1900: Confined/ Field Accumulation in Rotational Crops The registrant has requested revocation of oxadiazon on food/ feed uses and tolerances will be revoked. Therefore, reregistration requirements for accumulation in rotational crops are waived.

Tolerance Reassessment Summary Tolerances for residues of oxadiazon in/ on plant and animal RACs are currently expressed in terms of oxadiazon and its metabolites [ 2 tert butyl 4( 2,4 dichloro 5 hydroxyphenyl)

21,3,4 oxadiazolin 5 one and 2 carboxyiso propyl 4( 4 dichloro) 5 isopropo xyphenyl)

21,3,4 oxadiazolin 5 one] [ 40 CFR § 180.346].

The HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee ( S. Piper, D272425, 2/ 13/ 01) has concluded that the parent compound, oxadiazon is the only residue to be included in a drinking water risk assessment. The tolerance definition listed under 40 CFR § 180.346 should be changed to the following:

Tolerances have been revoked for oxadiazon and its metabolites [ 2 tert butyl 4( 2,4 dichloro 5 hydroxyphenyl)

21,3,4 oxadiazolin 5 one and 2 carboxyiso propyl 4( 4 dichloro) 5 isopropo xyphenyl)

21,3,4 oxadiazolin 5 one] in or on the following raw agricultural commodities presented in Table A:

Table A. Tolerance Reassessment Summary for Oxadiazon.

Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Tolerance a Reassessment ( ppm) Comme Tolerances listed under 40 CFR § 180.346:

Brazil nuts, bush nuts, butternuts, cashews, chestnuts, filbert, hazelnuts, hickory nuts, macadamia nuts, pecans, pistachio nuts, and walnuts. 0.05 Revoke The registran Cattle, meat, fat, mbyp 0.01 Revoke The registran Crabapples 0.05 Revoke The registran Commodity Current Tolerance ( ppm) Tolerance a Reassessment ( ppm) Comment/ Correct Commodity Definition 6 Goats, meat, fat, mbyp 0.01 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Hogs, meat, fat, mbyp 0.01 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Horses, meat, fat, mbyp 0.01 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Milk, fat 0.1 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Pears 2.0 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Quinces 0.05 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Rice, grain 0.05 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Rice, straw 0.2 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Sheep, meat, fat, mbyp 0.01 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

Stone fruits 0.05 Revoke The registrant will not support this use.

a The registrant, Aventis submitted a revocation letter ( 1/ 24/ 01) for oxadiazon in which they are not supporting any tolerances for oxadiazon in or on food.

DIETARY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY A dietary risk assessment for the uses of oxadiazon is not needed at this time because there are no food/ feed uses for oxadiazon.

CODEX HARMONIZATION 7 There are no CODEX, Canadian, or Mexican tolerances for oxadiazon residues on the 16 commodities listed in 40 CFR § 180.346.

AGENCY MEMORANDA CITED IN THIS DOCUMENT HED No: None DP Barcode: D271728 Subject: Oxadiazon. Issues to be Presented to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee ( MARC). From: S. Piper, HED To: HED Metabolism Committee Dated: 1/ 10/ 01 MRID( s): None HED No: None DP Barcode: D272425 Subject: Oxadiazon. The Outcome of the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee Meeting Held on 1/ 30/ 01. From: S. Piper, HED To: HED Metabolism Committee Dated: 2/ 13/ 01 MRID( s): None 8


1 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi 28573 1077659465 897675000. wpd MEMORANDUM TO: Jim Eddinger, EPA/ ESD FROM: Roy Oommen, ERG/ MOR DATE: July 1, 2003 SUBJECT: Summary of June 5, 2003 Boiler Meeting with AF& PA A meeting between the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and the American Forest and Paper Association ( AF & PA) was held on June 5, 2003 in Research Triangle Park,

NC. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss comments on the proposed Industrial,

Institutional, and Commercial Boiler and Process Heater National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ( NESHAP) referred to as the boiler maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) standards.

Meeting attendees included representatives of the OAQPS Emission Standards Division of the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), AF & PA, and various pulp and paper companies.

A complete list of attendees ( with their affiliation) is included as attachment 1.

Members of AFPA discussed comments submitted on the proposed rule. The agenda for the meeting is provided in attachment 2. 2 C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi 28573 1077659465 897675000. wpd Attachment 1 Meeting Attendance List C:\ dmautop\ temp\ dwcgi 28573 1077659465 897675000. wpd Meeting Attendance List Victor Dallons Weyerhauser Jim Eddinger U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Terry Harrison U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Tim Hunt AF & PA Jim Jackson Boise Ashok Jain NCASI Rob Kaufman Georgia Pacific Guy Martin Domtar Industries Ron Meyer U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Roy Oommen Eastern Research Group John Pinkerton NCASI Karen Risse International Paper Patrice Sims U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OGC Larry Sorrels U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Bob Wayland U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, OAQPS Steve Woock Weyerhauser Attachment 2 Meeting Agenda Agenda for AF& PA EPA Boiler Meeting June 5, 2003: 9 AM to noon C 400, EPA/ RTP 9: 00 AM Overview ( 15 minutes)  Tim Hunt  Introductions  Implications for Climate commitments and Clear Skies opt in  Major issues raised by other commenters  section 129, etc 9: 15 AM Opacity ( 20 minutes)  Rob Kaufmann 9: 35 AM Bubbling ( 15 minutes)  Karen Risse 9: 50 AM CO limit ( 20 minutes)  Victor Dallons 10: 10 AM Mercury limit ( 15 minutes)  Tim Hunt 10: 25 AM HCl Risk concept ( 5 minutes)  Tim Hunt 10: 30 AM Fuel Testing ( 40 minutes)  Rob Kaufmann, Jim Jackson, Karen Risse, John Pinkerton 11: 10 AM Action Levels ( 5 minutes)  Steve Woock 11: 15 AM Continuing discussion on fuel testing  All 11: 45 AM Monitoring equipment operating limits  Rob Kaufmann 12: 00 AM Miscellaneous items  Oxygen monitoring vs CO limit  Mercury limit for new sources  HCl risk details  Other items tabled from earlier discussions


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 133 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 32359]
[FR Doc No: 2017-14758]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9964-00-Region 10]

Public Water Supply Supervision Program; Program Revision for the
State of Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of tentative approval.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Alaska has revised
its approved State Public Water Supply Supervision Primacy Program.
Alaska has adopted regulations analogous to the Environmental
Protection Agency's Revised Total Coliform Rule. EPA has determined
that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding
federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve these State
program revisions. By approving these rules, EPA does not intend to
affect the rights of federally recognized Indian tribes within ``Indian
country,'' nor does it intend to limit existing rights of the State of
Alaska.

DATES: All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request
for a public hearing must be submitted by August 14, 2017 to the Acting
Regional Administrator at the EPA address shown below. Frivolous or
insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Acting
Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public
hearing is made by August 14, 2017, a public hearing will be held. If
no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the
Acting Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his
own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on
August 14, 2017. Any request for a public hearing shall include the
following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of
the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2)
a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Acting
Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the
information that the requesting person intends to submit at such
hearing; (3) the signature of the individual making the request, or, if
the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.

ADDRESSES: All documents relating to this determination are available
for inspection between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, at the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
Drinking Water Program, 555 Cordova Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501 and
between the hours of 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. and 1:00-4:00 p.m. at the EPA
Region 10 Library, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Copies
of the documents which explain the rule can also be obtained at EPA's
Web site at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/02/13/2012-31205/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-revisions-to-the-total-coliform-rule and https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/26/2014-04173/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations-minor-corrections-to-the-revisions-to-the-total-coliform, or by writing or
calling Ricardi Duvil, PhD., at the address below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardi Duvil, Ph.D., EPA Region 10,
Drinking Water Unit, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, OWW-193, Seattle,
Washington 98101, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Authority: Section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended
(1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations.

    Dated: June 12, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017-14758 Filed 7-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61734-61736]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21390]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

[Docket Number DOT-OST-2016-0169]

Agency Request for Emergency Approval of an Information
Collection

AGENCY: Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), U.S.
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), the Department of Transportation (DOT)
provides notice that it will submit an information collection request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency
approval of a proposed information collection. Upon receiving the
requested six-month emergency approval by OMB, the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology (OST-R), U.S. Department of Transportation will
follow the normal PRA procedures to obtain extended approval for this
proposed information collection.
    This collection involves information on barrier failure reporting
in oil and gas operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), as
referenced in recently issued Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (BSEE), U.S. Department of the Interior regulations at 30
CFR 250.730(c) (81 FR 25887, Apr. 29, 2016) and the BSEE final rule
amending and updating oil and gas production safety system (30 CFR
250.803) to be published in the Federal Register on September 7, 2016.
BTS and BSEE have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to
develop an industry-wide repository of barrier failure data, analyze
and aggregate information collected under this program, and publish
reports that will provide BSEE, the industry, and all OCS stakeholders
with essential information about failure types and modes of critical
safety barriers for offshore operations.
    BTS and BSEE have determined that it is in the public interest to
collect and process barrier failure reports or other data deemed
necessary to administer BSEE's safety program pertaining to barrier
failures, under a pledge of confidentiality for statistical purposes
only. The confidentiality of notices and reports submitted directly to
BTS will be protected in accordance with the Confidential Information
Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act of 2002 (CIPSEA) (44 U.S.C.
3501 note), which provides substantial additional confidentiality
protections than can be provided for reports submitted directly to
BSEE.
    Currently, reports on equipment failures are submitted directly to
BSEE with limited information related to barrier failure events and
root cause. Feedback from the industry during the data collection form
drafting process indicates substantial reluctance to provide detailed
barrier failure event information without the additional protections of
CIPSEA. Reports submitted directly to BTS under CIPSEA will use a
longer data collection form that includes additional essential detail
about a barrier failure event such as equipment history information,
certain important event data information, and root cause information.
The additional detail included in the longer form is critical to
comprehensively assess failures and determine appropriate exposure
denominators for risk estimates, in service of BSEE's mission to
protect safety and prevent environmental harm.
    Emergency processing of this collection of information is needed
prior to the expiration of time periods established under the PRA
because the use of normal clearance procedures is reasonably likely to
result in the collection of only limited data on barrier failure events
during the established PRA time periods. The use of normal clearance
procedures will prevent collection of this data during the established
PRA time periods, which will inhibit BSEE's ability to comprehensively
assess barrier failures and risks, identify barrier failure trends, and
identify causes of critical safety barrier failure events.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information related to this ICR,
including applicable supporting documentation may be obtained by
contacting Demetra V. Collia, Bureau of Transportation Statistics,
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Office of Statistical and Economic
Analysis, RTS-31, E36-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001; Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax No.<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

DATES: Comments should be submitted as soon as possible upon
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Comments and
questions should be

directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA),
Attn: OST OMB Desk Officer, 725 17th Street NW., Washington DC 20503.
Comments and questions about the ICR identified below may be
transmitted electronically to OIRA at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. The Data Collection

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35; as
amended) and 5 CFR part 1320 require each Federal agency to obtain OMB
approval to initiate an information collection activity. BTS is seeking
OMB approval for the following BTS information collection activity:
    Title: Barrier Failure Reporting in Oil and Gas Operations on the
Outer Continental Shelf.
    OMB Control Number: 2138-TBD.
    Type of Review: Approval of data collection. This information
collection is limited to the establishment of BTS as an authorized
repository for the previously approved information collections (OMB
Control Number 1014-0028, expiration 04/30/2019, and OMB Control Number
1014-0003, expiration 08/31/2019) in order to ensure the
confidentiality of submissions under CIPSEA.
    Respondents: BTS has entered into a MOU with BSEE to facilitate the
collection of information from respondents identified in the BSEE
notices for OMB Control Numbers 1014-0028 and 1014-0003. Responsibility
for establishing the actual scope and burden for this collection
resides with BSEE. This BTS information collection request does not
create any additional burden for respondents. For the purposes of this
collection BTS has identified BSEE as the sole respondent.
    Number of Potential Responses: For the purposes of this collection
BTS has identified BSEE as the sole respondent reporting to BTS at the
annual frequency of one.
    Estimated Time per Response: 60 minutes.
    Frequency: Once. Total Annual Burden: 1 hour.
    Abstract: CIPSEA can provide strong confidentiality protection for
information acquired for statistical purposes under a pledge of
confidentiality. CIPSEA Guidance from the Office of Management and
Budget advises that a nonstatistical agency or unit (BSEE) that wishes
to acquire information with CIPSEA protection may consider entering
into an agreement with a Federal statistical agency or unit (BTS). BTS
and BSEE have determined that it is in the public interest to collect
and process the blowout preventer (BOP) failure reports required by 30
CFR 250.730(c), safety and pollution prevention equipment (SPPE)
failure reports required by 30 CFR 250.803, or other data deemed
necessary to administer BSEE's safety program pertaining to barrier
failures under a pledge of confidentiality for statistical purposes
only. BTS has agreed through an MOU with BSEE to undertake the
information collection identified in the BSEE notices for OMB Control
Numbers 1014-0028 and 1014-0003 in order to ensure the confidentiality
of submissions under CIPSEA. Since this information collection is
limited to the establishment of BTS as an authorized repository for the
previously approved information collections (OMB Control Number 1014-
0028, expiration 04/30/2019, and OMB Control Number 1014-0003,
expiration 08/31/2019), this information collection request does not
create any additional burden for respondents.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48 and 44 U.S.C. 3501 note.

II. Background

    In August 2013, BTS and BSEE signed an interagency agreement (IAA)
to develop and implement SafeOCS, a voluntary program for confidential
reporting of `near misses' occurring on the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). The goal of the voluntary near miss reporting system is to
provide BTS with essential information about accident precursors and
other hazards associated with OCS oil and gas operations. Under the
program, BTS will develop and publish aggregate reports that BSEE, the
industry and all OCS stakeholders can use--in conjunction with incident
reports and other sources of information--to reduce safety and
environmental risks and continue building a more robust OCS safety
culture.
    On July 28, 2016, new BSEE regulations became effective, requiring
in part, the reporting of well control barrier-related failure event
and analysis information. Further, BSEE's final rule amending and
updating oil and gas production safety systems regulations which
require, in part, the reporting of SPPE failure event and analysis
information will become effective on November 8, 2016. BSEE requested
and BTS agreed to expand the scope of SafeOCS to include reports of
equipment failure mandated by 30 CFR 250.730(c) or 30 CFR 250.803.
    Both BTS and BSEE agree that reports of equipment failures are
considered a type of precursor safety information that can be included
in SafeOCS to provide a means of identifying industry-wide data trends
on barrier failures or potential for barrier failures. This data
collection will provide companies in the oil and gas industry a trusted
means to report sensitive proprietary and safety information related to
equipment failures and to foster trust in the confidential collection,
handling, and storage of the raw data.
    Feedback from the industry during the rulemaking and form drafting
processes indicates substantial reluctance to provide detailed barrier
failure event information without the additional protections of CIPSEA.
Reports submitted directly to BSEE use an abbreviated data collection
form that includes only limited information related to barrier failure
events. Reports submitted directly to BTS use a longer data collection
form that includes additional essential detail about a barrier failure
event such as equipment history information, certain important event
data information, and root cause information. The additional detail
included in the longer form is critical to comprehensively assess
failures and determine appropriate exposure denominators for risk
estimates, in service of BSEE's mission to prevent safety and
environmental harm.
    BTS will use the data collected to establish a comprehensive source
of barrier-related failure data for statistical purposes. With input
from subject matter experts, BTS will process and analyze information
on equipment failures, and publish results of such analyses in public
reports. Such reports will provide BSEE, the industry, and all OCS
stakeholders with essential information about failure types and modes
of critical safety barriers for offshore operations, provide valuable
information to identify and close gaps in risk management, and
contribute to research and development of intervention programs aimed
at preventing accidents and fatalities in the OCS.
    BTS will: (1) Collect failure notices, failure analysis reports,
and design change/modified procedures reports, as described in 30 CFR
250.730(c) and 30 CFR 250.803, submitted by industry operators, their
contractors, original equipment manufacturers, and others employed in
the oil and gas industry; (2) develop an analytical database using the
reported data and other pertinent information; (3) conduct statistical

analyses; (4) develop and publish aggregate public reports and other
data produces; and (5) protect the confidentiality of notices and
reports in accordance with BTS' own statute (49 U.S.C. 6307) and
CIPSEA. In accordance with these confidentiality statutes, only
statistical (aggregated) and non-identifying data will be made publicly
available by BTS through its reports. BTS will not release to BSEE or
any other public or private entity any information that might reveal
the identity of individuals or organizations mentioned in failure
notices or reports without explicit consent of the respondent and any
other affected entities.
    Respondents who report a barrier-related failure will be asked to
fill out a form based upon the requirements of 30 CFR 250.730(c) and
cited industry standards. They will also be asked to submit
supplemental information and analysis as described in 30 CFR 250.730(c)
or 30 CFR 250.803 and cited industry standards. Respondents will have
the option to mail or submit the reports electronically to BTS.
Respondents will be asked to provide information such as: (1) Name and
contact information; (2) time and location of the failure event; (3) a
short description of the failure event and operating conditions that
existed at the time of the event; (4) contributing factors to the
event; (5) results of an investigation or safety analysis report; (6)
any design or procedural changes as a result of the reported equipment
failure; and (7) any other information that might be useful in
determining ways to prevents such failures from occurring.
    BTS requests emergency processing of this information collection
because the use of normal clearance procedures is likely to result in
the collection of only limited data on barrier failure events during
the established PRA time periods. The use of normal clearance
procedures will prevent collection of this data during the established
PRA time periods, which will inhibit BSEE's ability to comprehensively
assess barrier failures and risks, identify barrier failure trends, and
identify causes of critical safety barrier failure events.
    The BSEE Well Control Rule failure data collection for BOP
equipment was substantially driven by an event of major national
significance, which also captured international attention. One
important element of this event was the failure of BOP equipment. The
event resulted in the deaths of 11 people and the largest oil spill in
US history. It is in the public interest to commence immediate
collection of the additional information on equipment history and
important event data to enable a better understanding of underlying
root causes.

III. Request for Public Comment

    BTS requests comments on any aspects of this information collection
request, including: (1) Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and
clarity of the collected information; and (2) ways to minimize the
collection burden without reducing the quality of the information
collected, including additional use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information technology.

Patricia Hu,
Director, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2016-21390 Filed 9-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P