[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 159 (Monday, August 17, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49985-49986]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0707; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-28]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Redding, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace, extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Benton Field Airport. This
action would ensure the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1-800-647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2020-0707; Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-28, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it would establish Class E airspace at Benton Field Airport,
Redding, CA, to support instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the
airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Persons wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2020-0707;
Airspace Docket No. 18-AWP-28''. The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments

received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office
(see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal
Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service
Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA
98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective
September 15, 2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace,
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Benton Field
Airport. This area is designed to contain IFR departures to 1,200 feet
above the surface and IFR arrivals descending below 1,500 feet above
the surface. This airspace area would be described as follows: That
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 3.3-
mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles east and 2.3 miles west
of the 002[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from 2.5 miles
north of the airport to 12.4 miles north of the airport, and within 2.7
miles each side of the 176[deg] bearing from the airport, extending
from the 3.3-mile radius to 10.8 miles south of Benton Field Airport.
    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11D, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Redding, CA

Benton Field Airport, CA
    (Lat. 40[deg]34'25'' N, long. 122[deg]24'26'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.3-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles east and
2.3 miles west of the 002[deg] bearing from the airport, extending
from 2.5 miles north of the airport to 12.4 miles north of the
airport, and within 2.7 miles each side of the 176[deg] bearing from
the airport, extending from the 3.3-mile radius to 10.8 miles south
of Benton Field Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on August 10, 2020.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2020-17875 Filed 8-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 94018]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30574]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations (49 CFR part 107,
subpart B), notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each
mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is
requested is indicated by a number in the ``Nature of Application''
portion of the table below as follows: 1--Motor vehicle, 2--Rail
freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft only, 5--Passenger-carrying
aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 23, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Address Comments To: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation
Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Paquet, Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits Division, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of the applications are available for
inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-30, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with Part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2016.
Donald Burger,
Chief, Office of the Special Permits and Approvals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Regulation(s)       Nature of the special
     Application No.         Docket No.          Applicant             affected             permits thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20367-N..................  ..............  Keith Huber           178.345-8(b)(1),      To authorize the
                                            Corporation.          178.345-8(d)(1).      transportation in
                                                                                commerce of non-DOT
                                                                                specification cargo tank
                                                                                motor vehicles. (mode
                                                                                1).
20370-N..................  ..............  American Honda Motor  173.301(a)(1).......  To authorize the
                                            Co., Inc.                                   transportation in
                                                                                commerce of hydrogen,
                                                                                compressed in non-DOT
                                                                                specification carbon
                                                                                fiber composite tanks.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4)
20374-N..................  ..............  Scana Corporation...  173.403, 173.427(b),  To authorize the
                                                                  173.465(c),           transportation in
                                                                  173.465(d).           commerce of SCO-II
                                                                                material which has fixed
                                                                                and non-fixed
                                                                                contamination levels on
                                                                                the inaccessible surface
                                                                                area in excess of that
                                                                                authorized. (mode 1)
20375-N..................  ..............  Department of         173.302(a),           To authorize the
                                            Defense (Military     173.304(a).           transportation of
                                            Surface Deployment                          certain hazardous
                                            & Distribution                              materials in non-DOT
                                            Command).                                   specification cylinders.
                                                                                (modes 1, 2, 3, 4)
20377-N..................  ..............  CYTEC Industries Inc  172.201, 172.400,     To authorize the
                                                                  172.301, 173.213.     transportation in
                                                                                commerce of phosphorous
                                                                                in reportable quantities
                                                                                without being subject to
                                                                                the requirements of the
                                                                                HMR. (modes 1, 4)
20378-N..................  ..............  LG Chem.............  172.101(j)..........  To authorize the
                                                                                transportation in
                                                                                commerce of lithium
                                                                                batteries by cargo-only
                                                                                aircraft in excess of 35
                                                                                kg net weight. (mode 4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-30574 Filed 12-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4909-60-M


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 36981]
[FR Doc No: 2016-13474]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-77976; File No. SR-NYSE-2016-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish
Certain End User Fees, Amend the Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the
Co-Location Section of the Price List To Reflect the Changes

 June 2, 2016.
    On April 4, 2016, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish fees relating to certain end users,
amend the definition of Affiliate, and amend the co-location section of
the Price List to reflect the changes. The Commission published the
proposed rule change for comment in the Federal Register on April 22,
2016.\3\ On April 29, 2016, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the
proposed rule change.\4\ The Commission received two comment letters on
the proposed rule change.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-77642 (April 18,
2016), 81 FR 23786 (``Notice'').
    \4\ Amendment No. 1 made technical changes relating to the
General Notes numbering and references in the Co-location section of
the Price List.
    \5\ See Letter from Michael J. Friedman, General Counsel and
CCO, Trillium to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated May
13, 2016; see also Letter from Eero Pikat to the Commission, dated
May 13, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \6\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of the notice of the filing of a proposed rule change,
or within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission shall approve the proposed rule
change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings
to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ designates July 21, 2016, as the date by which the Commission
should approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine
whether to disapprove the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSE-2016-
11), as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-13474 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 241 (Thursday, December 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78060-78062]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32167]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-65934; File No. SR-Phlx-2011-170]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Request Permanent Approval of the
Pilot Program to Permit NASDAQ OMX PSX to Accept Inbound Orders that
Nasdaq Execution Services, LLC Routes in its Capacity as a Facility of
The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC

December 9, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 1, 2011, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' or the ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (q``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Phlx is filing this proposed rule change to request permanent
approval of the Exchange's pilot program to permit the Exchange's
NASDAQ OMX PSX system (``PSX'') to accept inbound orders that Nasdaq
Execution Services, LLC (``NES'') routes in its capacity as a facility
of The NASDAQ Stock Market

LLC (``NASDAQ''). Phlx proposes to implement the rule change upon
Commission approval. The text of the proposed rule change is available
at http://nasdaqomxphlx.cchwallstreet.com/nasdaqomxphlx/phlx, at Phlx's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, NES is the approved outbound routing facility of NASDAQ
for cash equities, providing outbound routing from NASDAQ to other
market centers.\3\ PSX also has been previously approved to receive
inbound routes of cash equities orders by NES in its capacity as an
order routing facility of NASDAQ on a pilot basis.\4\ The Exchange
hereby seeks permanent approval to permit PSX to accept inbound orders
that NES routes in its capacity as a facility of NASDAQ (subject to the
attendant obligations and conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASDAQ Rule 4758. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 50311 (September 3, 2004), 69 FR 54818 (September 10,
2004) (Order Granting Application for a Temporary Conditional
Exemption Pursuant To Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act by the
National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating to the
Acquisition of an ECN by The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.) and 52902
(December 7, 2005), 70 FR 73810 (December 13, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-
128) (Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Establish Rules
Governing the Operation of the INET System).
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62877 (September 9,
2010), 75 FR 56633 (September 16, 2010) (SR-Phlx-2010-79) (the ``PSX
Approval Order''). See also Securities Exchange Act Release No.
65552 (October 13, 2011), 76 FR 64989 (October 19, 2011) (Sr-Phlx-
2011-139) (extending pilot through April 8, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During the pilot period, the Exchange committed to the following
conditions:
    1. Pursuant to a regulatory services agreement (the ``FINRA RSA'')
between the Exchange and Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''), FINRA will review NES's compliance with the Exchange's
rules through FINRA's examination program.\5\ Pursuant to the FINRA
RSA, however, the Exchange retains ultimate responsibility for
enforcing its rules with respect to NES.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In addition, NES is subject to independent oversight by
FINRA, its Designated Examining Authority, for compliance with
financial responsibility requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. FINRA and the Exchange \6\ will monitor NES for compliance with
the Exchange's trading rules, and will collect and maintain certain
related information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Personnel performing real-time oversight of equity trading
on NASDAQ will also perform similar functions with respect to PSX
pursuant to a regulatory services agreement among NASDAQ, the
Exchange, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., and NASDAQ OMX (the ``Intercompany
RSA'') under the direction, authority, and oversight of Phlx's Chief
Regulatory Officer (``CRO'') and the Regulatory Oversight Committee
(``ROC'') of its Board of Directors.
    \7\ Pursuant to the FINRA RSA, both FINRA and the Exchange will
collect and maintain all alerts, complaints, investigations and
enforcement actions in which NES (in its capacity as a facility of
Nasdaq routing orders to the Exchange) is identified as a
participant that has potentially violated applicable Commission or
Exchange rules. The Exchange and FINRA will retain these records in
an easily accessible manner in order to facilitate any potential
review conducted by the Commission's Office of Compliance
Inspections and Examinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. FINRA will provide a report to the Exchange's CRO, on a
quarterly basis, that: (i) Quantifies all alerts (of which FINRA and
the Exchange are aware) that identify NES as a participant that has
potentially violated Commission or Exchange rules, and (ii) quantifies
the number of all investigations that identify NES as a participant
that has potentially violated Commission or Exchange rules.
    4. The Exchange will adopt and maintain Rule 985(c)(2), which
requires NASDAQ OMX, as the holding company owning both the Exchange
and NES, to establish and maintain procedures and internal controls
reasonably designed to ensure that NES does not develop or implement
changes to its system, based on non-public information obtained
regarding planned changes to the Exchange's systems as a result of its
affiliation with the Exchange, until such information is available
generally to similarly situated Exchange members, in connection with
the provision of inbound order routing to the Exchange.
    5. The routing of orders from NES to the Exchange, in NES's
capacity as a facility of NASDAQ, will be authorized for a pilot period
of twelve months (later extended for an additional six months).
    The Exchange has met all the above-listed conditions. By meeting
the above-conditions, the Exchange has set up mechanisms that protect
the independence of the Exchange's regulatory responsibilities with
respect to NES, as well as demonstrate that NES cannot use any
information advantage it may have because of its affiliation with the
Exchange. Since the Exchange has met all the above-listed conditions,
it now seeks permanent approval of the PSX and NES inbound routing
relationship. The Exchange will continue to comply with conditions 1-4
on an ongoing basis.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to continue receiving
inbound routes of equities orders from NES acting in its capacity as a
facility of NASDAQ, in a manner consistent with prior approvals and
established protections. The Exchange believes that its having met the
commitments established during the pilot program demonstrates that (i)
The Exchange has mechanisms to protect the independence of the
Exchange's regulatory responsibilities with respect to NES, and (ii)
NES cannot use any information advantage it may have because of its
affiliation with the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall:
(a) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or (b)
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-Phlx-2011-170 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-170. 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2011-170 and should be
submitted on or before January 5, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-32167 Filed 12-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	April 21, 2010

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document for the District of Columbia State
Implementation Plan for Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

			/s/

FROM:	Rose Quinto, Environmental Engineer

Office of Air Program Planning

TO:		File

			/s/

THRU: 	Cristina Fernandez, Associate Director

Office of Air Program Planning

A.  INTRODUCTION

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking action on certain
submittals made by the District of Columbia (the District) to meet the
Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2) requirements of the revised 1997
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), the 1997
fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and the revised 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

B.  BACKGROUND

1997 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone (62 FR
38856) and a new NAAQS for PM2.5 (62 FR 38652).  The revised ozone NAAQS
was based on 8-hour average concentrations.  The 8-hour averaging period
replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the
NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm.  The
new PM2.5 NAAQS was established on health-based annual standards for
PM2.5 of 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) based on a 3-year
average of annual mean PM2.5 concentrations and a

24-hour standard of 65 µg/m3 based on a 3-year average of the 98th
percentile of 24-hour concentrations.

Whenever a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated, section 110(a) of the
CAA imposes obligations upon States to submit State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions that provide for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS within three years following the
promulgation of such NAAQS.  Although States typically have met many of
the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier
SIP submissions in connection with previous ozone and PM standards,
States (including all of the Region 3 States) were still required to
submit SIP revisions that address section 110(a)(2) for the 1997 NAAQS.
These SIPs were due in July 2000.  However, intervening litigation over
the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS created uncertainty about how to
proceed and, as of October 2007, States had not submitted SIPs to meet
these infrastructure requirements.

In March of 2004, Earthjustice initiated a lawsuit against EPA for
failure to take action against States that had not made SIP submissions
to meet the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2), i.e., failure to
make a “finding of failure to submit the required SIP 110(a) SIP
elements.”  On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a Consent Decree with
Earthjustice that obligated EPA to make official findings, in accordance
with section 110(k)(1) of the CAA, as to whether States have made
complete SIP submissions, pursuant to sections 110(a)(1) and (2), by
December 15, 2007 for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and by October 5, 2008
for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA made completeness findings for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16205) and on October 22,
2008 (73 FR 62902) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  These findings pertained
only to whether the submissions were complete, pursuant to 110(k)(1)(A),
and did not constitute EPA approval or disapproval of such submissions.

Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the
three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs
incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather are due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are
due pursuant to section 172.  These elements are: 1) submissions
required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection pertains
to a permit program in Part D Title I of the CAA;  and 2) any
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I), which pertain to the
nonattainment planning requirements of Part D Title I of the CAA.  The
determinations required by the consent decree excluded any determination
regarding such portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) and section 110(a)(2)(I),
therefore, this action does not cover these specific elements.  This
action also does not address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
have been addressed by a separate finding issued by EPA on April 25,
2005 (70 FR 21147).

With respect to the District’s obligations pursuant to CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, this
technical support document discusses only those elements which were the
subject of EPA’s completeness findings.  While the completeness
findings noted that the District failed to submit a complete SIP
addressing the portion of (C) and (J) relating to the Part C permit
programs for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA recognized that
such requirement has already been addressed by a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) that remains in place, and concluded that the finding of
incompleteness would not trigger any additional FIP obligation for the
District with respect to this requirement.  EPA is therefore including
(C) and (J) relating to the Part C permit programs for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in this action.

2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

	On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA revised the 24-hour average
PM2.5 primary and secondary NAAQS from 65 µg/m3 to 35 µg/m3.  As
required by section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, the 110(a)(2) submittals were
due within three years after promulgation of the revised standard, with
the exception of sections 110(a)(2)(C) pertaining to Part D permit
program and 110(a)(2)(I) for the same reasons discussed for the 1997
standard.

C.  EPA REQUIREMENTS

As discussed above, for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, States
must provide SIP submissions, or provide certification that address
section 110(a)(2)(A) through (M), with the exception of the portion of
110(a)(2)(C) pertaining to a permit program in Part D Title I of the
CAA, 110(a)(2)(I) and (D)(i).  To help States meet this statutory
requirement, EPA issued guidance on October 2, 2007 entitled “Guidance
on SIP Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997
8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” which
listed the basic elements that States must include in their SIPs.

On September 25, 2009, EPA issued an updated guidance document entitled
Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for
the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), which clarifies, in further detail, expectations for
certain elements to meet the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  Specifically,
guidance is provided for satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(D)
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as well as guidance for
satisfying the section 110(a)(2)(G) requirements that addresses both the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  EPA notes, however, that the requirements
under 110(a)(2)(D)(i) are being addressed separately and are not
included in this action.

D.  STATE’S SUBMITTAL

The District of Columbia provided multiple submittals to satisfy the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS and a submittal to address the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS:
submittals dated December 6, 2007 and January 11, 2008 addressed the
110(a)(2) requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS;  submittals
dated August 25, 2008 and September 22, 2008 addressed the 110(a)(2)
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS; and submittal dated September 21,
2009 addressed the 110(a)(2) requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
These submittals addressed the following infrastructure elements, that
EPA is proposing to approve in this action:  section 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M).

E.  EVALUATION OF STATE SUBMITTAL

As noted above, the District provided multiple submittals for the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  However, the
demonstrations submitted by the District for how it is meeting many of
the elements are substantively identical for both the ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS, therefore the following evaluation of each element pertains to
all standards except as otherwise noted.

1.  Section 110(a)(2)(A)

For the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, enforceable emission limits, control
measures, fees, and compliance schedules are contained in the
District’s reasonable further progress (RFP) and attainment
demonstration SIP revision that was submitted to EPA on June 12, 2007.
These limits, measures, and fees are also found in those provisions of
20 DCMR Chapters 2, 3, and 6 through 10 which are in the District’s
approved SIP and listed in 40 CFR 52.470(c).

For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the pertinent emission limitations and
schedules are contained in the District’s PM2.5 attainment
demonstration SIP revision that was submitted to EPA on April 2, 2008.
The requirements for section 110(a)(2)(A) for both the 1997 and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, are also met through 20 DCMR Chapters 2, 3, and 6 through
10 which are in the District’s approved SIP and listed in 40 CFR
52.470(c).

District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR), Title 20 –
Environment

Chapter 2 – General and Nonattainment Area Permits

Chapter 3 – Operating Permits

Chapter 6 – Particulates

Chapter 7 – Volatile Organic Compounds

Chapter 8 – Asbestos, Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxides

Chapter 9 – Motor Vehicle Pollutants, Lead, Odors, and Nuisance
Pollutants

Chapter 10 – Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Budget Program

	For the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the District certified that its SIP meets the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A).

2.  Section 110(a)(2)(B)

		The District has made the necessary submittals documenting that it has
established and currently operates appropriate devices, methods,
systems, and procedures necessary to monitor, compile, and analyze data
on ambient air quality, and upon request, makes such data available to
the Administrator.  (See submittals dated January 11, 2008, August 25,
2008, and September 21, 2009).

The District maintains and operates multi-station ozone and PM2.5
networks to measure ambient ozone and PM2.5 levels within the District
for comparison to the NAAQS as required by 40 CFR part 58.  Ozone and
PM2.5 monitoring is currently performed at various locations throughout
the District.

All data for ozone and PM2.5 are measured using EPA approved methods as
either reference or equivalent monitors, all monitors are subjected to
the quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix A; and
all samples are located at the sites that have met the minimum citing
requirements of 40 CFR part 58, Appendix E.  The data are submitted to
EPA’s Air Quality System (AQS), in a timely manner in accordance to
the scheduled prescribed by EPA in 40 CFR part

	58 and in accordance with section 105 grant commitment, sub-objective
1.1.1.

In order to keep EPA informed of changes to the sampling network, the
District Department of the Environment (DDOE) provides EPA Region III
with prior notification of any planned changes to the network.  As
needed, details of these changes and anticipated approvals of the
changes are communicated to EPA.  On an annual basis, DDOE sends EPA a
summary table of all the changes to the network.  This summary also
provides for the description of each change, the reason for each change,
and any information relevant to the change.  DDOE submits data to the
AQS, in a timely manner, pursuant to the scheduled prescribed by EPA in
40 CFR part 58.

3.  Section 110(a)(2)(C)

The program for enforcement and control measures is found in 20 DCMR
Chapters 1 and 5, and 20 DCMR 302.2.  Monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for sources in the control measure regulations of
20 DCMR Chapters 2, 3, and 6 through 10 are part of the District’s
approved SIP that is  listed in 40 CFR 52.470(c).

To address the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) requirement
of this element for both the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, the District is
subject to a FIP for a PSD permit program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.499.

The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to a permit
program in Part D Title I of the CAA will be addressed separately and
are not included in this action.

4.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

	The requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) will be addressed
separately and are not included in this action.

5.  Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)

The District is not subject to the requirements of sections 126 and 115
of the CAA.

6.  Section 110(a)(2)(E)

The District has adequate authority under the District of Columbia Air
Pollution Control Act of 1984, effective March 15, 1985 (D.L. Law 5-165,
D.C. Official Code, section 8-101 et seq.) to carry out its SIP
obligations with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, and
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and to revise the SIP as necessary.  The primary
sources of funding for the implementation of the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, are the section 105 grants funds
provided to DDOE, fees collected under the Title V program, and District
funding.  The District has adequate funding and personnel to carry out
SIP revisions with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, and
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In addition, the District does not have any board
which approves air quality permits or enforcement orders, and does not
rely on localities for specific SIP implementation.

7.  Section 110(a)(2)(F)

Specific monitoring requirements that apply to the ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
are found in 20 DCMR 501 and 502;  20 DCMR 302, 500, and 502;  and DCMR
302.1;  as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
for sources in 20 DCMR Chapters 2, 3, and 6 through 10.  These
requirements are included in the District’s SIP revisions and codified
in 40 CFR 52.470(c).

DDOE analyzes emissions data and correlates such data with applicable
emission limitations or standards.  Section 105 grants are used to
support air quality inspectors, and part of their process is to compare
source emissions to emission limitations and standards.  All reports are
available to the public under the District of Columbia Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (D.C. Official Code Section 2-531 et seq.).

8.  Section 110(a)(2)(G)

Statutory authority is found in section 3 of the District of Columbia
Air Pollution Control Act of 1984, effective March 25, 1985 (D.C. Law
165) which created DCMR 401.  DCMR 401 – Emergency Procedures, was
approved into the SIP on August 28, 1995 (60 FR 44431) and codified at
40 CFR 52.470(c).

On September 22, 2008, the District submitted a certification of
classification as a priority III emergency episode plan region.  The
requirement for a State to submit an emergency episode plan is based on
a priority region classification.  States with a 24-hour PM2.5
concentration above 140.5 µg/m3, using the most recent three years of
data, are required to develop an emergency episode plan.  States that do
not meet this threshold would be classified as priority III and would
not be required to adopt an emergency episode plan for PM2.5.  PM2.5
monitors in the District show that PM2.5 concentration levels for the
past three years are below the 140.5 µg/m3 threshold, therefore, the
District is not required to adopt an emergency episode plan for PM2.5.
(See Table 1).

Table 1.  PM2.5 Monitoring Data in µg/m3 for the Past Three Years

(98th Percentile for the Year) for the District of Columbia

Monitor	2005	2006	2007

River Terrace	36.2	35	32.8

Haines Point	36.4	33	28.7

McMillan	34.4	33.2	32.4

8.  Section 110(a)(2)(H)

		The District will review and revise its SIP from time to time as may
be necessary to take into account revisions of such primary or secondary
NAAQS or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of
attaining such standard and whenever the Administrator finds on the
basis of information available to the Administrator that the plan is
substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS which it implements or to
otherwise comply with any additional requirements established under the
CAA.  When plan revisions are necessary, the regional planning process
through the Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) or its
successors, coordinated with the transportation planning agencies, is
used.  The District has adequate authority under the District of
Columbia Air Pollution Act of 1984, effective March 25, 1985 (D.C. Law
5-165, D.C. official Code §8-101 et seq.) to revise the SIP.

9.  Section 110(a)(2)(I)

EPA will be taking action through the process associated with the
approval or disapproval of the attainment plans.

10.  Section 110(a)(2)(J)

	All the District’s SIP revisions have gone through public notice and
hearing that allowed the public (including local political subdivisions)
to comment.  The District Department of Transportation and the
Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Committee (MWAQC) are part of the
attainment and air quality planning process.  The attainment plans and
regulations in the approved District’s SIP revisions specify the
organizations responsible for implementing and enforcing air quality
regulations.

	To address the PSD requirement of this element for both the ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS, the District is subject to a FIP for a PSD permit program
pursuant to 40 CFR 52.499.

	The District of Columbia air quality data from the monitoring network
for ozone and PM2.5 are published in EPA’s AirNow website and the
annual summary of all monitoring data, including exceedances and
violations of standards, are published on EPA’s Air Quality Data Mart.
 The Air Quality forecast is published on the District Department of the
Environment website.  These data are also submitted to the Council of
Governments as part of the Ozone Action Day process.

11.  Section 110(a)(2)(K)

The District submitted SIP revisions on June 12, 2007 for the 1997
8-hour ozone pertaining to the base year inventory, RFP plan, and
attainment demonstration for the Washington, DC-MD-VA ozone
nonattainment area which contained the required modeling.

		For the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the District’s air quality modeling was
performed as part of the regional SIP planning process through MWAQC.
The PM2.5 modeling performed by MWAQC was submitted as part of the
District’s PM2.5 SIP submittal on April 4, 2008.

		Relevant to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the District’s air quality
modeling will be performed as part of the regional SIP planning process
through MWAQC or its successors.  The District will continue to submit
quality modeling data as part of its relevant submissions developed as
part of the regional process through MWAQC or its successors as required
under sub-objective 1.1.1 of the District’s 105 grant.  Upon request,
the District will submit current and future data relating to such
quality modeling to the Administrator.

12.  Section 110(a)(2)(L)

Fees are collected according to the District’s approved SIP revision
under 20 DCMR 305, Title V permit program, as codified in 40 CFR
52.740(c), Appendix A;  40 CFR Part 70;  and 60 FR 40101, August 7,
1995.

13.  Section 110(a)(2)(M)

		There are no political subdivisions in the District.  All SIP
revisions undergo public notice and hearing that allows for comment by
the public, including local political subdivisions.  The public notice
and hearing processes fulfill the requirements for consultation with
local political subdivisions affected by the SIP.  MWAQC is an
organization that has been certified by the Governors of Maryland and
Virginia and the Mayor of the District of Columbia under section 174 of
the CAA and includes representative of local governments.

F.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION

EPA’s analysis of the District’s infrastructure submittals for the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS concludes
that the District’s submittals meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M).  It is recommended that a notice of proposed rulemaking be prepared
approving the District’s infrastructure submittals for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

 PAGE

 PAGE  9


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 239 (Thursday, December 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64119-64120]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26961]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL19-25-000, QF18-1748-001, QF18-1749-001]

Notice of Petition for Enforcement: Great Divide Wind Farm 2,
LLC; Great Divide Wind Farm 3, LLC

    Take notice that on December 6, 2018, pursuant to section
210(h)(2)(B) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978
(PURPA), Great Divide Wind Farm 2 LLC and Great Divide Wind Farm 3 LLC
(Project Companies or Petitioner) filed a Petition for Enforcement,
requesting that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
initiate an enforcement action against New Mexico Public Regulation
Commission to remedy their alleged improper implementation of PURPA,
all as more fully explained in their petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioners.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an

eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 27, 2018.

    Dated: December 7, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26961 Filed 12-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 1, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37548-37552]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16422]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83717; File No. SR-NYSE-2018-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Its Price List Related to Co-Location Services in Connection With
a Proposed Transaction With the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. Exchange
and Its Parent, CHX Holdings, Inc.

July 26, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934

(``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given that
on July 16, 2018, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') 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 self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List related to co-
location services in connection with a proposed transaction
(``Transaction'') whereby the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'')
Exchange and its parent, CHX Holdings, Inc. (``CHX Holdings''), would
become indirect subsidiaries of Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(``ICE''), the Exchange's indirect parent, and affiliates of the
Exchange. The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive change
to the Price List. The proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's website at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List related to co-
location \4\ services in connection with the proposed Transaction
whereby CHX and its parent, CHX Holdings, would become indirect
subsidiaries of ICE, the Exchange's indirect parent, and affiliates of
the Exchange.\5\ The Exchange also proposes to make a non-substantive
change to the Price List.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange initially filed rule changes relating to its
co-location services with the Commission in 2010. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 62960 (September 21, 2010), 75 FR 59310
(September 27, 2010) (SR-NYSE-2010-56). The Exchange operates a data
center in Mahwah, New Jersey (the ``data center'') from which it
provides co-location services to Users.
    \5\ In order to effect the Transaction, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Exchange's direct parent company, NYSE Group,
Inc., would merge with and into CHX Holdings, with CHX Holdings
continuing as the surviving corporation. See Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 83635 (July 13, 2018) (SR-CHX-2018-004), and 83303 (May
22, 2018), 83 FR 24517 (May 29, 2018) (SR-CHX-2018-004). CHX would
also become an affiliate of the Exchange's affiliates NYSE American
LLC (``NYSE American''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca''), and NYSE
National, Inc. (``NYSE National'' and, together, the ``Affiliate
SROs'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes that the proposed rule change become
operative upon the closing of the Transaction.
General Note 4
    Pursuant to General Note 4 of the Price List, when a User \6\
purchases access to the Liquidity Center Network (``LCN'') or the
internet protocol (``IP'') network, the two local area networks
available in the data center,\7\ a User receives (a) the ability to
access the trading and execution systems of the Exchange and the
Affiliate SROs (``Exchange Systems''), and (b) connectivity to any of
the listed data products (``Included Data Products'') that it selects.
The majority of the Included Data Products are proprietary feeds of the
Exchange and the Affiliate SROs.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For purposes of the Exchange's co-location services, a
``User'' means any market participant that requests to receive co-
location services directly from the Exchange. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 76008 (September 29, 2015), 80 FR 60190
(October 5, 2015) (SR-NYSE-2015-40). As specified in the Price List,
a User that incurs co-location fees for a particular co-location
service pursuant thereto would not be subject to co-location fees
for the same co-location service charged by the Affiliate SROs. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70206 (August 15, 2013), 78 FR
51765 (August 21, 2013) (SR-NYSE-2013-59).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79730 (January 4,
2017), 82 FR 3045 (January 10, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2016-92).
    \8\ Id. Included Data Products are listed in the Price List
under General Note 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon the closing of the Transaction, CHX will be an affiliate of
both the Exchange and the Affiliate SROs. Consistent with the treatment
of the Exchange's and the Affiliate SROs' trading and execution systems
and data products, the Exchange proposes to expand the definition of
Exchange Systems to incorporate CHX's trading and execution systems,
and to add CHX's data products to the table of Included Data Products.
In order to make the change, the Exchange proposes to add CHX to the
list of trading and execution system providers in the first sentence of
the first paragraph and add CHX to the lists of affiliated entities in
the first, third and fourth sentences. The proposed changes to the
paragraph are as follows (additions underlined, deletions in brackets):
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AU18.008

BILLING CODE 8011-01-C
    In addition, the Exchange proposes to add CHX to the table of
Included Data Products set forth in General Note 4.
    In a non-substantive change, the Exchange proposes to make the
table of Included Data Products alphabetical by putting the list of
NYSE American feeds before NYSE American Options. Such list currently
follows NYSE Bonds.
Connectivity to Third Party Systems and Third Party Data Feeds
    Users may obtain access to the trading and execution services of
third party markets and other content service providers (``Third Party
Systems'') of multiple third party markets and other content service
providers for a fee.\9\ Users connect to Third Party Systems over the
IP network. In addition, Users may obtain connectivity to data feeds
from third party markets and other content service providers (``Third
Party Data Feeds'') for a fee.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80311 (March 24,
2017), 82 FR 15741 (March 30, 2017) (SR-NYSE-2016-45).
    \10\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, CHX is listed in the tables setting forth the Third
Party Systems and Third Party Data Feeds, and Users seeking access to
CHX's trading and execution services and data feeds are subject to the
applicable fees. Consistent with the proposed changes to General Note 4
described above, because CHX will become an affiliate of the Exchange,
the Exchange proposes to delete CHX from such tables.
General
    As is the case with all Exchange co-location arrangements, (i)
neither a User nor any of the User's customers would be permitted to
submit orders directly to the Exchange unless such User or customer is
a member organization, a Sponsored Participant or an agent thereof
(e.g., a service bureau providing order entry services); (ii) use of
the co-location services proposed herein would be completely voluntary
and available to all Users on a non-discriminatory basis; \11\ and
(iii) a User would only incur one charge for the particular co-location
service described herein, regardless of whether the User connects only
to the Exchange or to the Exchange, one or more of its Affiliate
SROs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As is currently the case, Users that receive co-location
services from the Exchange will not receive any means of access to
the Exchange's trading and execution systems that is separate from,
or superior to, that of other Users. In this regard, all orders sent
to the Exchange enter the Exchange's trading and execution systems
through the same order gateway, regardless of whether the sender is
co-located in the data center or not. In addition, co-located Users
do not receive any market data or data service product that is not
available to all Users, although Users that receive co-location
services normally would expect reduced latencies in sending orders
to, and receiving market data from, the Exchange.
    \12\ See 78 FR 51765, supra note 6, at 51766. The Affiliate SROs
have also submitted substantially the same proposed rule change to
propose the changes described herein. See SR-NYSEAMER-2018-38, SR-
NYSEArca-2018-53, and SR-NYSENAT-2018-17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other
issues relating to co-location services and/or

related fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Users
would have in complying with the proposed change.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\13\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\14\ in particular, because it is designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of,
a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest and because it is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because upon the closing of the Transaction, CHX will
be an affiliate of both the Exchange and the Affiliate SROs. Expanding
the definition of Exchange Systems to incorporate CHX's trading and
execution systems, adding CHX's data products to the table of Included
Data Products, and removing CHX from the lists of Third Party Systems
and Third Party Data Feeds would make the Price List treatment of CHX
trading and execution systems and data products consistent with the
treatment of the trading and execution systems and data products of the
Exchange and the Affiliate SROs.
    Further, the Exchange believes that revising General Note 4 would
promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments
to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market and a
national market system as it would make clear that all Users that
voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would receive the
same access to the CHX trading and execution systems and connectivity
to CHX data as to those of the Exchange and the Affiliate SROs and
would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid for the
relevant LCN or IP network access. In addition, as with Exchange and
Affiliate SRO access and connectivity, a User would not be required to
use any of its bandwidth to access the CHX trading and execution system
or connect to CHX data unless it wished to do so. A User only receives
access to Exchange Systems and connectivity to Included Data Products
that it selects, and a User can change such access or connectivity it
receives at any time, subject to authorization from the relevant data
provider, the Exchange, or relevant Affiliate SRO.
    The Exchange believes that the non-substantive change to put the
table of Included Data Products into alphabetical order would remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanisms of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest because the amendment would clarify Exchange rules and
make it easier for market participants to find Included Data Products
in the table.
    The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\15\ in particular, because
it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its members, issuers and other persons using its
facilities and does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change provides for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among
its members, issuers and other persons using its facilities and does
not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or
dealers, because the change would result in CHX, which will be an
affiliate of the Exchange and the Affiliate SROs, being treated on the
same terms and in the same manner as the Exchange and the Affiliate
SROs with respect to their trading and execution systems and data
products. The proposed change would result in reduced fees for Users
that have access or connectivity to CHX, as it would no longer be a
Third Party System or Third Party Data Feed.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive change to
put the table of Included Data Products into alphabetical order would
be reasonable because the change would have no impact on pricing or
services offered. Rather, the change would alleviate possible market
participant confusion by making it easier to find Included Data
Products in the table.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\16\ the Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because, in addition to the use of co-location
services being completely voluntary, they are available to all Users on
an equal basis (i.e., the same range of products and services are
available to all Users).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change would not impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the change would result
in CHX, which will be an affiliate of the Exchange and Affiliate SROs,
being treated on the same terms and in the same manner as the Exchange
and the Affiliate SROs with respect to their trading and execution
systems and data products. As a result of the proposed changes, all
Users that voluntarily select to access the LCN or IP network would
receive the same access to the CHX trading and execution systems and
connectivity to CHX data as to those of the Exchange and the Affiliate
SROs and would not be subject to a charge above and beyond the fee paid
for the relevant LCN or IP network access. A User would not be required
to use any of its bandwidth to access the CHX trading and execution
system or connect to CHX data unless it wishes to do so. The proposed
change would result in reduced fees for Users that have access or
connectivity to CHX, as it would no longer be a Third Party System or
Third Party Data Feed.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive change to
put the table of Included Data Products into alphabetical order would
not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
change would have no impact on pricing or the services offered. Rather,
the change would alleviate possible market participant confusion by
making it easier to find Included Data Products in the table.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \17\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\18\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \19\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \20\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\21\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so that the
proposal may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange
represents that the requested wavier would ensure that immediately upon
the closing of the Transaction CHX would be treated on the same terms
and in the same manner as the Exchange and the Affiliate SROs with
respect to their trading and execution systems and data products. The
waiver would allow the Exchange to expand the definition of Exchange
Systems to incorporate CHX's trading and execution systems, add CHX's
data products to the table of Included Data Products, and remove CHX
from the lists of Third Party Systems and Third Party Data Feeds
immediately upon the closing of the Transaction. In addition, it would
implement the reduced fee for Users that currently have access or
connectivity to CHX immediately upon Closing. The Commission believes
that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the
Commission waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \22\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \23\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2018-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-35. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2018-35 and should be submitted on
or before August 22, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16422 Filed 7-31-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Shaunta Hill,<PHONE_NUMBER>

 	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of

dimethomorph
[(E,Z)4-[3-(4-chlorophenyl)-3-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-oxo-2-propenyl]-mo
rpholine] in or on the raw agricultural commodity Grape at 3.5 parts per
million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the
FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petition.  Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

. Based upon the results of metabolism studies conducted on potato,
grape, and lettuce, the nature of the residues in Grapes is considered
to be understood.  The results of the potato metabolism study show only
negligible residues in tubers, 0.01-0.02 parts per million (ppm) total
radioactive residues (TRR).  This is in contrast to the aerial portions
of the plant, which were found to have up to 23.5 ppm TRR, thus
demonstrating that translocation of dimethomorph downward within the
plant was not significant.  Almost all of the radioactive residue
(97.8%) was extractable from the plant at harvest.  In the aerial
portion of the plant, approximately 70% of the TRR was identified as
dimethomorph.  No metabolites were identified that require regulation.

The results of the grape metabolism study showed that the TRR in/on
grapes harvested 35 days following the last of four applications [0.8 lb
active ingredient per acre (ai/A) per application for four consecutive
weeks] for a total rate of 3.2 lb ai/A was 14.6 ppm.  Unmetabolized
dimethomorph accounted for 87.3% of the TRR (12.7 ppm).  No metabolites
were identified that require regulation.

	The results of the lettuce metabolism study showed that the TRR in/on
lettuce leaves harvested 4 days following the last of 4 applications
[approximately 1.0 lb ai/A per application with a 9 to 11 day spray
interval], for a total rate of 4.1 lb ai/A, was 102 ppm.  Of this total
residue, 98.5% was extractable and unmetabolized dimethomorph accounted
for greater than 93% of the extractable TRR.  No metabolites were
identified that require regulation.

. A reliable method for the determination of dimethomorph residues in
Grapes exists; this method is the FDA Multi-Residue Method, Protocol D,
as published in the Pesticide Analytical Manual I.

. Supervised field trials were carried out to determine the magnitude of
the residue in/on grapes;.  The number and locations of field trials are
in accordance with OPPTS Guideline 860.1500. Field trials were carried
out using the maximum label rates, the maximum number of applications,
and the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) for all the crops. Detected
residues of Dimethomorph in all crops support the proposed tolerances.

.  i. Oral LD50 studies were conducted on dimethomorph technical:

a. An acute oral toxicity study in the Sprague-Dawley rat for
dimethomorph technical with a LD50 of 4,300 milligrams/kilogram body
weight (mg/kg b.w.) for males and 3,500 mg/kg b.w. for females.  Based
upon EPA toxicity criteria, the acute oral toxicity category for
dimethomorph technical is Category III or slightly toxic.

b. An acute toxicity study in the CD-1 mouse for dimethomorph technical
with a LD50 of greater than 5000 mg/kg b.w. for males and 3699
mg/kg/b.w. for females. Based on the EPA toxicity category criteria, the
acute oral toxicity category for dimethomorph technical is Category III
or slightly toxic.

ii. Oral LD50 studies were conducted on the two isomers (E and Z) alone:

An acute oral toxicity study in the Wistar rat for the E-isomer with a
LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/kg b.w. for males and approximately 5,000
mg/kg b.w. for females.

   b. An acute oral toxicity study in the Wistar rat for the Z-isomer
with a LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/kg b.w. for both males and females.

An acute dermal toxicity study in the Wistar rat for dimethomorph
technical with a dermal LD50 greater than 5,000 mg/kg b.w. for both
males and females.  Based on the EPA toxicity category criteria, the
acute dermal toxicity category for dimethomorph is Category IV or
relatively non-toxic.

iv. A 4-hour inhalation study in Wistar rats for dimethomorph technical
with a LC50 greater than 4.2 mg/L for both males and females.  Based on
the EPA toxicity category criteria, the acute inhalation toxicity
category for dimethomorph technical is Category IV or relatively
non-toxic.

v. A skin irritation study was performed using New Zealand White
rabbits. Based on the EPA toxicity criteria, the skin irritation
toxicity category for dimethomorph technical in this study is Category
IV or non-to-slightly irritating.

vi. An eye irritation study using New Zealand White rabbits demonstrated
dimethomorph technical produced moderate conjunctival redness, slight to
moderate chemosis and slight discharge three hours after treatment.
Based on the EPA toxicity criteria, the eye toxicity category for
dimethomorph technical is Category III (slightly-to-moderately
irritating)

.   i. Salmonella reverse gene mutation assays (2 studies) were negative
up to a limit dose of 5,000 (g/plate. Chinese hamster lung V79 cells
were negative for mutations at the HGPRT locus at up to toxic doses in
two studies.

Two Chinese hamster lung (V79 cells) structural chromosomal studies were
reportedly positive for chromosomal aberrations at the highest dose
tested (HDT) (160 (g/ml/-S9; 170 (g/ml/+S9).  However, dimethomorph
induced only a weak response in increasing chromosome aberrations in
this test system.  In addition, these results were not confirmed in two
micronucleus tests under in vivo conditions.

Structural Chromosomal Aberration studies were weakly positive in human
lymphocytic cultures, but only in S9 activated cultures treated at 422
(g/ml, the highest dose tested (HDT), which was strongly cytotoxic.  No
increase in chromosomal aberrations was observed in the absence of S9
activation at all doses.  Furthermore, the positive clastogenic response
observed under the in vitro conditions was not confirmed in two in vivo
micronucleus assays.

Micronucleus assay (2 studies) indicated that dimethomorph was negative
for inducing micronuclei in bone marrow cells of mice following i.p.
administration of doses up to 200 mg/kg or oral doses up to the limit
dose of 5,000 mg/kg.  Thus, dimethomorph was found to be negative in
these studies for causing cytogenic damage in vivo.

Dimethomorph was negative for inducing unscheduled DNA synthesis, in
cultured rat liver cells, at doses up to 250 (g/ml, a weakly cytotoxic
level.

Dimethomorph was negative for transformation in Syrian hamster embryo
cells treated, in the presence and absence of activation, up to
cytotoxic concentrations (265 (g/ml/+S9; 50 (g/ml/-S9).

.  i. A rat developmental toxicity study with a Lowest-Observed-Effect
Level (LOEL) for maternal toxicity of 160 mg/kg/day and a
No-Observed-Effect Level (NOEL) for maternal toxicity of 60 mg/kg/day.
The NOEL for developmental toxicity is 60 mg/kg/day.  Dimethomorph is
not teratogenic in the Sprague-Dawley rat.

ii. A rabbit development toxicity study with a LOEL for maternal
toxicity of 650 mg/kg/day and a NOEL for maternal toxicity of 300
mg/kg/day.  The NOEL for developmental toxicity is 650 mg/kg/day, the
highest dose tested.  Dimethomorph is not teratogenic in the New Zealand
white rabbit.

iii. A two-generation rat reproduction study with a LOEL for parental
systemic toxicity of 1000 ppm, or approximately 80 mg/kg/day, and a NOEL
for parental systemic toxicity of 300 ppm, or approximately 24
mg/kg/day.  The NOEL for fertility and reproductive function was 1000
ppm, the highest concentration tested, or approximately 80 mg/kg
b.w./day.

 i. A 90-day dietary study in Sprague-Dawley rats with a NOEL of greater
than or equal to 1000 ppm, the highest concentration tested, or
approximately 73 mg/kg/day for males and 82 mg/kg/day for females.

ii.  A 90-day dog dietary study with a NOEL of 450 ppm, or approximately
15 mg/kg/day, and a LOEL of 1350 ppm, or approximately 43 mg/kg/day.

. i. A 2-year chronic toxicity study in Sprague-Dawley rats with a NOEL
of 200 ppm or approximately 9 mg/kg/day for males and 12 mg/kg/day for
females.  The LOEL for systemic toxicity is 750 ppm, or approximately 36
mg/kg/day for males and 58 mg/kg/day for females.

ii. A 1-year chronic toxicity study in dogs with a NOEL of 450 ppm, or
approximately 14.7 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 1350, or approximately 44.6
mg/kg/day.

iii. A 2-year oncogenicity study in Sprague-Dawley rats with a NOEL for
systemic toxicity of 200 ppm, or approximately 9 mg/kg/day for males and
11 mg/kg/day for females.  The LOEL for systemic toxicity was 750 ppm,
or approximately 34 mg/kg/day for males and 46 mg/kg/day for females.
There was no evidence of increased incidence of neoplastic lesions in
treated animals.  The NOEL for oncogenicity is 2000 ppm, the highest
concentration tested, or approximately 95 mg/kg/day for males and 132
mg/kg/day for females.

iv. A 2-year oncogenicity study in CD-1 mice with a NOEL for systemic
toxicity of 100 mg/kg/day and a LOEL of 1,000 mg/kg/day.  There was no
evidence of increased incidence of neoplastic lesions in treated
animals.  The NOEL for oncogenicity is 1,000 mg/kg/day, the highest dose
tested.

. Results from the livestock and rat metabolism studies show that orally
administered dimethomorph was rapidly excreted by the animals.  The
principal route of elimination is the feces.

. There were no metabolites identified in plant or animal commodities
which require regulation.

. Collective organ weights and histopathological findings from the
two-generation reproduction study in rats, as well as from the
subchronic and chronic toxicity studies in two or more animal species,
demonstrate no apparent estrogenic effects or effects on the endocrine
system.  There is no information available that suggests that
dimethomorph technical would be associated with endocrine effects.

.  [Acute Dietary Exposure Assessment

An acute assessment was not needed since the U.S. EPA Toxicological
Endpoint Selection (TES) Committees had previously evaluated the
dimethomorph toxicity data, including developmental and maternal
toxicity in the developmental toxicity studies and determined there was
no toxicologic endpoints for acute dietary exposure and a quantitative
acute dietary exposure and risk assessment were not required.

Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment

A Tier 1 chronic dietary exposure assessment was conducted assuming
tolerance level residues and 100% crop treated factors for all
registered and proposed crops.  The EPA Food Commodity Ingredient
Database (FCID) was also used in Exponent's Dietary Exposure Evaluation
Module (DEEM-FCID) software.  Inadvertent residues in animal commodities
(i.e. meat, meat byproducts, milk, eggs) were not considered as a result
of grain forage since studies have shown dimethomorph does not
accumulate in animal tissues or milk and tolerance values for these
commodities are not required by the EPA.

Dietary exposure estimates were compared against the established
dimethomorph chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) of 0.11 mg/kg
b.w./day for all populations.  Results of the chronic dietary
assessments are listed in the table below.  The estimated chronic
dietary exposure from crops (both established and proposed tolerances)
was less than 25% of the cPAD for all subpopulations (Table 1).
Additional refinements such as the use of anticipated residues would
further reduce the estimated chronic dietary exposure.  The results in
the Table below demonstrate that there are no safety concerns for any
subpopulation based on established and new uses, and that the results
clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable certainty of no harm.

Table 1.  Summary of Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessment considering
crops with established and proposed tolerances for Dimethomorph.

Population sub-group	Chronic Exposure (mg/kg bw/day)	%cPAD

US Population	0.0143730	13.5

All infants (< 1 year)	0.0083360	9.1

Children 1-2	0.0261150	24.4

Children 3-5	0.0217070	20.4

Children 6-12	0.0144150	13.5

Youth 13-19	0.0114830	10.8

Adults 20-49	0.0139690	13.1

Adults 50+ yrs	0.0137380	12.9

Females 13 - 49 yrs	0.0133010	12.5

. The chronic drinking water values used in this analysis were the
values proposed by EPA Federal Register Notice, September 29, 2003,
Volume 68, No. 188.  The chronic drinking water value used was 28.3
ug/L.

Table 2.  Summary of Chronic Drinking Water Exposure Assessment
Considering the Maximum Estimated Chronic Drinking Water Concentration
for Dimethomorph.

Population sub-group	Chronic Exposure (mg/kg bw/day)	%cPAD

US Population	0.000506	0.46

All infants (< 1 year)	0.001658	1.51

Children 1-2	0.000751	0.68

Children 3-5	0.000703	0.64

Children 6-12	0.000485	0.44

Youth 13-19	0.000366	0.33

Adults 20-49	0.000472	0.43

Adults 50+ yrs	0.000497	0.45

Females 13 - 49 yrs	0.00047	0.43

Acute Aggregate Exposure and Risk (Food and water)

Since the U.S. EPA Toxicological Endpoint Selection (TES) Committees has
evaluated the dimethomorph toxicity data and determined there was no
toxicologic endpoints for acute dietary exposure, the determination of
an acute aggregate exposure and risk evaluation was not required.

Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk (food and water)

The aggregate chronic risk includes residues of dimethomorph from food
and water (Table 3). Exposures from residential uses are not included in
the chronic aggregate assessment.  The results demonstrate there are no
safety concerns for any subpopulation based on established and new uses,
and that the results clearly meet the FQPA standard of reasonable
certainty of no harm.

Table 3.  Estimated Chronic Aggregate Exposure and Risk for
Dimethomorph.

Population Subgroup	cPAD (mg/kg/day)	Food Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Water
Exposure (mg/kg/day)	Total Exposure (mg/kg/day)	% cPAD

U.S. Population	0.11	0.014373	0.000506	0.014879	13.5

All Infants (< 1 yr old)	0.11	0.008336	0.001658	0.009994	9.1

Children 1-2 years	0.11	0.026115	0.000751	0.026866	24.4

Children 3-5 years	0.11	0.021707	0.000703	0.02241	20.4

Children 6 – 12 years	0.11	0.014415	0.000485	0.0149	13.5

Youth 13-19 years	0.11	0.011483	0.000366	0.011849	10.8

Females 13-49 years	0.11	0.013969	0.000472	0.014441	13.1

Adults 20-49 years	0.11	0.013738	0.000497	0.014235	12.9

Adults + 50	0.11	0.013301	0.00047	0.013771	12.5

. Dimethomorph is not registered for use on any sites that would result
in residential exposure.  Therefore, a residential exposure and risk
assessment was not conducted.

There is no information to indicate that any toxic effects produced by
dimethomorph would be cumulative with those of any other chemical.  The
fungicidal mode of action of dimethomorph is unique; dimethomorph
inhibits cell wall formation only in Oomycete fungi.  The result is
lysis of the cell wall that kills growing cells and inhibits spore
formation in mature hyphae.  This unique mode of action and limited pest
spectrum suggest that there is little or no potential for cumulative
toxic effects in mammals.  In addition, the toxicity studies submitted
to support this petition do not indicate that dimethomorph is a
particularly toxic compound.  No toxic end-points of potential concern
were identified.

. Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population
from the aggregate exposure to dimethomorph residues.

. Based on this risk assessment, BASF concludes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants or children
from the aggregate exposure to dimethomorph residues.

There are no Canadian, Mexican, or Codex MRLs established for
dimethomorph for the commodities associated with this request;
consequently, a discussion of international harmonization is not
relevant.

{<HD1>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{
}

{<E T=’03'>}

{</E>}

{<HD2>}

{</HD2>}

{
}