 July 13, 2015

Stephanie Doolan Air & Waste Management Division Air Planning and Development Branch U.S. EPA Region 7 11201 Renner Boulevard Lenexa, KS 66219

Subject: 	Project Number 14-421; Plant No. 78-01-012 	Griffin Pipe Products Co.  -  Council Bluffs, IA

Dear Ms. Doolan:

Enclosed is a copy of a public notice that is being published in The Daily Nonpareil.  This public notice is in regards to Griffin Pipes Products' construction permit application for the cupola at their facility.  The purpose of this application is to establish lead emission limitations in response to the nonattainment designation published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2011 (76 FR 72097).  The Department is proceeding with the permitting process for the cupola located at 2601 9[th] Avenue, Council Bluffs, IA.

This notice is being sent to you pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.161, which requires that specific notification of this public notice be given to you.  Also attached are the other documents relevant to this project for permitting the cupola and establishing lead emission limits.

Should you have any questions, please contact me at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Sincerely,

Shawn Corbin Environmental Engineer Construction Permits Section Air Quality Bureau

Enclosures  -  Notice of Intent, Technical Support Document, Draft Permit, Consent Decree & Permit Application


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62983-62985]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24948]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73362; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2014-117]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change Modifying Its Quote Mitigation Plan and
Amending Rule 6.86

October 15, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on October 2, 2014, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE Arca'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to modify its quote mitigation plan and to
amend Rule 6.86 (Firm Quotes). The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to modify its quote mitigation plan and
to amend Rule 6.86 (Firm Quotes). As discussed below, the Exchange
believes the modified quote mitigation plan will adequately accommodate
the number of quotations sent to the Exchange and the message traffic
that the Exchange sends to the Options Price Reporting Authority
(``OPRA'').
Rule 6.86
    In connection with the adoption of the Penny Pilot Program, the
Exchange adopted a quote mitigation plan designed to reduce the number
of quotations generated by the Exchange for all options traded on the
Exchange, not just issues included in the Penny Pilot Program.\4\ The
current plan reduces the number of messages the Exchange sends to OPRA
by only submitting quote messages for ``active'' series. Commentary .03
to Rule 6.86 defines active series as: (i) The series has traded on any
options exchange in the previous 14 calendar days; or, (ii) the series
is solely listed on the Exchange; or (iii) the series has been trading
ten days or less, or; (iv) the Exchange has an order in the series.
Alternatively, the Exchange may define a series as active on an
intraday basis if: (i) The series trades at any options exchange; (ii)
the Exchange receives an order in the series; or (iii) the Exchange
receives a request for quote from a Customer in that series.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 55156 (January 23,
2007), 72 FR 4759 (January 23, 2007) (SR-NYSEArca-2006-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it no longer needs the quote mitigation
provided by Commentary .03 to Rule 6.86 because rules adopted since
Commentary .03 to Rule 6.86 provide sufficient quote mitigation.
Current Market Structure and Controls on the Exchange
    In 2010, the Exchange incorporated select provisions of the Options
Listing Procedures Plan (``OLPP'') in Rule 6.4A as a quote mitigation
strategy.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 61977 (April 23,
2010), 75 FR 22884 (April 30, 2010) (SR-NYSEArca-2010-30). See also
OLPP, available at, http://www.theocc.com/clearing/industry-services/olpp.jsp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The OLPP is a national market system plan that, among other things,
sets forth procedures governing the listing of new options series. From
the OLPP, the Exchange incorporated in Rule 6.4A, ``applied uniform
standards to the range of options series exercise (or strike) prices
available for trading on the [Exchange] as a quote mitigation
strategy.'' \6\ In approving the OLPP provisions subsequently
incorporated in Rule 6.4A, the Commission indicated that ``adopting
uniform standards to the range of options series exercise (or strike)
prices available for trading on the [Exchange] should reduce the number
of option series available for trading, and thus should reduce
increases in the options quote message traffic because market
participants will not be submitting quotes in those series.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Rule 6.4A codified Amendment No. 3 to the OLPP. See
Securities and Exchange Release No. 60531 (August 19, 2009) 74 FR
43173 (File No. 4-443). See also Rule 6.4A.
    \7\ Id., 74 FR at 43174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One year after adopting select provisions of the OLPP, the Exchange
refined the quoting obligations

applicable to Market Makers as a quote mitigation strategy.\8\
Specifically, the Exchange adopted Commentary .01 to Rule 6.37B, which
states that Lead Market Makers' and Market Makers' continuous quoting
obligations ``shall not apply to Market Makers with respect to adjusted
option series, and series with a time to expiration of nine months or
greater, for options on equities and Exchange Traded Fund Shares, and
series with a time to expiration of twelve months or greater for Index
options.'' \9\ Because there are no Market Maker quoting obligations
associated with adjusted options series, there is a reduction in quote
traffic that is sent to OPRA. Indeed, in approving Commentary .01 to
Rule 6.37B, the Commission noted, ``. . . the Exchange's proposal would
reduce the burden on market makers to submit continuous quotes that the
Exchange may not submit to OPRA.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities and Exchange Release No. 65573 (October 14,
2011), 76 FR 65305 (October 20, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-59).
    \9\ An ``adjusted series'' is ``an option series wherein, as a
result of a corporate action by the issuer of the underlying
security, one option contract in the series represents the delivery
of other than 100 shares of underlying stock or Exchange-Traded Fund
Shares.'' See Commentary .01 to Rule 6.37B.
    \10\ See supra n. 8, 76 FR at 65306.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that reliance on the OLPP, via Rule 6.4A,
together with the refined Market Maker quoting obligations, pursuant to
Commentary .01 to Rule 6.37B, is sufficient as a quote mitigation
strategy and obviates the need for Rule 6.86. The Exchange believes
that limiting the number of series listed on the Exchange is preferable
to suppressing quotes of inactive series, as required under current
Rule 6.86, because all quotes sent by Market Makers are actionable even
if not displayed.
    The Exchange believes that both its own systems capacity and OPRA's
systems capacity are more than sufficient to accommodate any additional
increase in quote traffic that might be sent to OPRA as a result of the
deletion of Rule 6.86. The Exchange has already successfully conducted
testing to ensure that its internal systems are equipped to handle any
increase in quote traffic as a result of the proposed rule change.
Further, the Exchange continually assesses its capacity needs and
ensures that the capacity that it requests from OPRA is not only
sufficient but also compliant with the requirements established in the
OPRA Capacity Guidelines.\11\ In submitting its capacity requests, the
Exchange has factored in the impact on capacity if all series currently
subject to Rule 6.86 were to become active and therefore sent to
OPRA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See the OPRA Capacity Guidelines, available here, http://www.opradata.com/pdf/capacity_guidelines.pdf.
    \12\ OPRA has delegated certain functions pertaining to planning
the capacity of the OPRA System to an Independent System Capacity
Advisor (``ISCA'') that ``may provide less than all of the capacity
that has been requested if it determines (a) that the capacity
requests of one or more of the parties are unreasonable, or (b) that
it is not reasonable to develop or maintain a System that has
capacity sufficient to satisfy the requests of the parties.'' See
id. The Exchange has never been informed by the ISCA that the
capacity it has requested cannot be met for any reason, including
because the ISCA had deemed the request to be unreasonable. Thus,
the Exchange believes that any increase in quote traffic that might
be sent to OPRA as a result of the current proposal should not
impact any other exchange's capacity at OPRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange has in place the following measures that
it believes serve as additional safeguards against excessive quoting:

--Monitoring: The Exchange actively monitors the quotation activity of
its Market Makers. When the Exchange detects that a Market Maker is
disseminating an unusual number of quotes, the Exchange contacts that
Market Maker and alerts it to such activity. Such monitoring may reveal
that the Market Maker may have internal system issues or has
incorrectly set system parameters that were not immediately apparent.
Alerting a Market Maker to the heightened levels of activity will
usually result in a change that reduces the number of quotes sent to
the Exchange by the Market Maker.
--New Listings: The Exchange has a business plan with respect to the
listing of options on new underlying securities that is designed to
help ensure that any new listings are sufficiently active to avoid
listing options on underlying securities that generate quote volume
without the offsetting benefit of trading volume.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NYSE Arca Options Listing Policy Statement, available
at, http://www.nyse.com/pdfs/TraderNoticeArcaLOPSChanges092713.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--Ratio Threshold Fees: The Exchange imposes a ratio fee that is
designed to encourage the efficient use of orders.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule, available at, https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.

    In connection with the foregoing, the Exchange proposes to amend
paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of Rule 6.86 to delete references to the
``Quote Mitigation Plan,'' which refer to the plan set forth in
Commentary .03 to Rule 6.86. In addition, the Exchange proposes to
delete Commentary .03 to Rule 6.86 in its entirety, as it contains a
discussion of the current quote mitigation plan.
Implementation
    The Exchange will announce the implementation date of the proposed
rule change by Trader Update to be published no later than 60 days
following the effective date of this filing. The implementation date
will be no later than 60 days following the issuance of the Trader
Update.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
\15\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act \16\ in particular in that it should promote just and equitable
principles of trade, serve to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the quote
mitigation plan, including the continued reliance on Rule 6.4A and
Commentary .01 to Rule 6.37B, together with the other safeguards
mentioned above, would promote just and equitable principles of trade,
serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and
open market as it would increase transparency and enhance price
discovery as all Market Maker quotes would be reflected in the market.
Specifically, the Exchange believes that deleting Commentary .03 to
Rule 6.86 will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system because it will
enable all actionable Market Maker quotes to be displayed, including in
inactive series. The Exchange believes this would also protect
investors and the public interest because available Market Maker
liquidity in all series would be publicly displayed, thereby putting
investors on notice of such liquidity. The Exchange further believes
that the market structure initiatives adopted in recent years serve to
reduce the potential for excessive quoting because the OLPP limits the
number of series eligible to be listed, which reduces the number of
series for which a Market Maker would be obligated to quote, and
therefore reduces quote traffic.
    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that both its own systems
capacity and OPRA's systems capacity are more than sufficient to
accommodate any additional increase in

quote traffic that might be sent to OPRA as a result of the proposed
rule change.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, as discussed
above, the Exchange believes that any increase in quote traffic that
might be sent to OPRA as a result of the proposed rule change should
not impact any other exchange's capacity at OPRA.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra n. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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 will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the 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-NYSEArca-2014-117 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-117. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2014-117, and
should be submitted on or before November 12, 2014.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24948 Filed 10-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: February 22, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 35)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8962-8965]
[DOCID:fr22fe06-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2005-TX-0003; FRL-8034-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revision to the Rate of Progress Plan for the Beaumont/Port Arthur
Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving revisions to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Post-1996 Rate of Progress (ROP) Plan, the
1990 Base Year Inventory, and the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
(MVEB) established by the ROP Plan, for the Beaumont/Port Arthur (BPA)
ozone nonattainment area submitted November 16, 2004. The intended
effect of this action is to approve revisions submitted by the State of
Texas to satisfy the reasonable further progress requirements for 1-
hour ozone nonattainment areas classified as serious and demonstrate
further progress in reducing ozone precursors. We are approving these
revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air
Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 24, 2006 without further notice,
unless EPA receives relevant adverse comment by March 24, 2006. If EPA
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2005-TX-0003, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm.
 Please click on ``6PD'' (Multimedia) and select

``Air'' before submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
     Fax: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Thomas Diggs, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays except
for legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2005-TX-0003. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal

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

is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be

automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning

Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30am and 4:30pm weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office of Air Quality,
12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone
214-665-6645<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

What Action Are We Taking?

    We are approving revisions to the BPA area post-1996 ROP Plan for
the 1997-1999, 2000-2002 and 2003-2005 time periods submitted in a
letter dated November 16, 2004. The post-1996 ROP plan is designed to
achieve an additional 9 percent reduction in emissions between 1996 and
1999, a further 9 percent reduction between 1999 and 2002, and another
9 percent reduction between 2002 and 2005. We are also approving
revisions to the 1990 base year inventory and the ROP Plan's associated
Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEB) for 1999, 2002, and 2005.

Why Are These Revisions Necessary?

    On March 30, 2004, EPA issued a final action in the Federal
Register reclassifying BPA from moderate one-hour ozone nonattainment
to serious (69 FR 16483). With this new classification came several
requirements including a requirement to provide a revision to the SIP
showing the CAA section 182(c)(2) rate of progress requirements would
be met for 1999, 2002, and 2005.
    We released a new MOBILE6 model on January 29, 2002. (See 67 FR at
4254). Using MOBILE6 to calculate the 1999, 2002, and 2005 ROP target
levels requires a revision to the 1990 base year inventory, which is
the planning base line from which the ROP targets are calculated. Texas
updated the 1990 base year inventory for the BPA area to reflect the
use of MOBILE6. This affected the base year on-road mobile source
inventory as well as the projected emission reductions from mobile
source control programs. Texas also made a number of other changes as a
result of updated information.

What Are the Clean Air Act's Rate of Progress Requirements?

    Section 182(c)(2) of the CAA requires each State to submit for each
serious and above ozone nonattainment area a SIP revision, which
describes how the area will achieve an actual volatile organic compound
(VOC) emission reduction from the baseline emissions of at least 3
percent of baseline emissions per year averaged over each consecutive
3-year period beginning 6 years after enactment (i.e., November 15,
1996) until the area's attainment date. The CAA does not allow States
to take credit for emission reductions due to Federal Motor Vehicle
Controls adopted prior to 1990 or corrections to reasonably available
control technology or vehicle inspection and maintenance programs.
Section 182(c)(2)(C) explains the conditions under which reductions of
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) may be substituted for reductions
in VOC emissions for post 1996 ROP plans.

Why Control Volatile Organic Compounds and Oxides of Nitrogen?

    VOCs participate in chemical reactions with oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and oxygen in the atmosphere in the presence of
sunlight to form ozone, a key component of urban smog. Inhaling even
low levels of ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including
chest pains, coughing, nausea, throat irritation, and congestion. It
can also worsen bronchitis, asthma and reduce lung capacity.
    EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for ozone. The previously adopted standard of 0.12 ppm averaged over a
1 hour period has been phased out and replaced with a new standard of
0.08 ppm averaged over a 8 hour period. The 1-hour standard was revoked
on June 15, 2005.
    Areas that do not meet a NAAQS are subject to nonattainment
requirements of the CAA. Air quality in BPA does not meet either the 1-
hour or the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. As such, the area is subject to the
ROP requirements of section 182 of the CAA. The revised ROP plan
approved today was developed in response to a 1-hour ozone requirement.
Under the anti-backsliding provisions of the Phase I ozone
implementation rule, published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR 69 FR 23951),
these rate of progress requirements must remain in effect.

How Has Texas Demonstrated Compliance With Rate of Progress
Requirements?

    Table 1 and Table 2 show the target levels and the projected
controlled VOC and NOX emissions for each of the milestone
years in the SIP.
    The target levels are calculated by subtracting the needed
percentage reductions for each ROP milestone year and any non-
creditable reductions from the 1990 base year levels. Projected future-
year emissions for 2005 were developed by projecting from the State's
2002 Emission Inventory--actual emission inventory estimates reported
for 2002. Emissions for 1999 and 2002 are based on the actual reported
inventory for those years. The projections for 2005 were determined
based on growth estimates using EPA approved methodologies and
imposition of Federal and SIP-approved state enforceable controls. The
two tables demonstrate that estimated emissions in 1999 and 2002 and
projected emissions for 2005 are well below the target levels for each
of the milestone years. In other words, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has shown that there will be more emission
reductions than are required to meet each milestone's target level. For
a complete discussion of EPA's evaluation of TCEQ's calculation of
target levels and emission projections, see the technical support
document for this action.

              Table 1.--Actual and Projected NOX Emissions
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Category/year            1990       1999       2002       2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Emissions.........     313.13     225.21     193.65      177.1
Target Level................         NA     303.37     270.02     234.82
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The reductions in projected emissions shown in Table 1 result from
a variety of measures including post-1990 federal motor vehicle control
programs, NOX reasonably available control technology, and
controls on lean burn engines and additional NOX controls
shown to be needed to achieve attainment.
    It is worth noting that the 2005 projections above do not include
all of the emission reductions expected in the BPA area including
reductions from the Texas Emission Reduction Program and some of the
industrial controls required to be implemented after 2002.

             Table 2.--Actual and projected VOC inventories
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Category/year            1990       1999       2002       2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................     320.56     150.02     126.22     119.55
Target......................         NA     230.40     228.57     227.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen in Table 2, the VOC emission reductions were largely
realized between 1990 and 1999. These VOC reductions result from post-
1990 federal motor vehicle emission control programs and a variety of
point source measures implemented as part of the area's ROP plan for
the 1990-1996 time period which was approved February 10, 1998 (63 FR
6659). In addition, the State has quantified the reductions from the
institution of Maximum Available Control Technology (MACT) standards
under 40 CFR Part 63 such as the Hazardous Organic National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants.

What Are the Revisions to the 1990 Base Year Inventory?

    Table 3 summarizes the changes to the approved 1990 base year
inventory. For a full discussion of EPA's evaluation, see the technical
support document for this action.

      Table 3.--1990 Rate-of-Progress Base Year Emissions Inventory
                               [Tons/day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Base year inventory
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       VOC                   NOX
         Source type         -------------------------------------------
                                 Old        New        Old        New
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................     245.35     245.54     221.01     221.01
Area........................      30.63      24.56       1.44      16.73
On-road Mobile..............      19.11      36.99      41.09      54.94
Non-road Mobile.............      18.44      13.47      60.72      20.63
                             -------------------------------------------
    Total...................     313.53     320.56     324.26     313.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The columns denoted as old were the 1990 base year emission
inventories approved February 10, 1998 (63 FR 6659). The changes to the
inventory result from the use of the more recent version of EPA's model
for estimating on-road mobile source emissions, MOBILE6, the more
recent emissions model for emissions from off-road mobile sources,
NONROAD, and several area-specific studies of activity levels. Appendix
7 in the submitted Plan includes various studies of off-road emissions
categories. In particular, TCEQ has included area-specific studies of
aircraft, locomotive, ship and construction emissions.

What Are the Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets Established in the Plan?

    Table 4 documents the motor vehicle emissions budgets that have
been established by this post-1996 ROP Plan revision. A motor vehicle
emission budget is that portion of the total allowable emissions
defined in the SIP revision allocated to on-road mobile sources for a
certain date for meeting the purpose of the SIP, in this case
reasonable further progress towards attainment of the NAAQS. EPA's
conformity rule (40 CFR part 51, subpart T and part 93, subpart A)
requires that transportation plans, programs and projects in
nonattainment or maintenance areas conform to the SIP. The motor
vehicle emissions budget is one mechanism EPA has identified for
demonstrating conformity. Upon the effective date of this SIP approval,
all future transportation improvement programs and long range
transportation plans for the Beaumont/Port Arthur area will have to
show conformity to the budgets in this plan; previous budgets approved
or found adequate will no longer be applicable.

            Table 4.--SIP ROP Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Year                             NOX      VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999..................................................    57.17    20.52
2002..................................................    49.56    17.21
2005..................................................    33.97    12.59
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Final Action

    The EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to the Texas SIP
because the revisions are consistent with the CAA and EPA regulatory
requirements. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal
because the EPA views this as a non-controversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section
of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision
should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective April 24,
2006 without further notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse
comment by March 24, 2006.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on April 24, 2006, and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 24, 2006. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 6, 2006.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.

0
40 CFR Part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. The second table in Sec.  52.2270(e) entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas
SIP'' is amended by adding two new entries to the end of the table for
``Post 1996 Rate of Progress Plan'' and for ``Revisions to the 1990
Base Year Inventory'', both for the Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX area. The
additions read as follows: Sec.  52.2270 Identification of plan
* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
      Name of SIP provision           geographic or       submittal/     EPA approval date         Comments
                                    nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Post 1996 Rate of Progress Plan..  Beaumont/Port              11/16/04  February 22, 2006..
                                    Arthur, TX.
Revisions to the 1990 Base Year    Beaumont/Port              11/16/04  February 22, 2006..
 Inventory.                         Arthur, TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 06-1565 Filed 2-21-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

EPA Registration Division contact: [P.V. Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

[Loveland Products, Inc.]

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from [Loveland Products, Inc.], [3005 Rocky Mountain Ave., Loveland, CO 80538] proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

	To establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

	[2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (common name) (HMB), (CAS nomenclature: methanone, (2-hydroxy-4-methoxyphenyl)phenyl-; CAS No. 131-57-7) when used as an inert ingredient as a UV-stabilizer at no more than 25% in pesticide formulations under 40 CFR §180.920 (pre-harvest uses)].  This petition proposes to establish exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (HMB) in or on [all] raw agricultural commodities.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; 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.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism.  [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information
Is generally not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	2. Analytical method. [The petition proposes to establish exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance and no analytical method is generally required for establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [NA-Remove based on the fact that this information
Is generally not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

B. Toxicological Profile
[HMB is a member of the 2-hydroxybenzophenone class of chemicals.  Many members of this class are used as UV-stabilizers in medicine, food packaging, and the cosmetics industry as a sunscreen and color fastener.  The proposed use of HMB is to act as a light stabilizer in end use products to prevent photodegradation of the active ingredient in pesticide formulations.  HMB is cleared as an antioxidant under 21 CFR § 177 (Indirect Food Additives:  Polymers) Subpart B (Substances for Use as Basic Components of Single and Repeated Use Food Contact Surfaces) and § 177.1010 (Acrylic and modified acrylic plastics, semi-rigid and rigid).  It is approved for use in pesticide formulations which are applied to non-food crops such as turf and ornamentals.  The amount of HMB in pesticide formulations will be no more than 25%.
In addition to data on 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (HMB), toxicity data are also summarized herein for a surrogate chemical, 2-hydroxy-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone (OH-OBP; CAS No. 1843-05-6).  OH-OBP is structurally similar to HMB, the only difference is the methoxy substituent on HMB is substituted with an n-octyloxy group in OH-OBP.  Data generated for 2-hydroxy-n-octyloxybenzophenone (OH-OBP) should be considered as surrogate data for HMB where data for HMB is limited.  Metabolism studies indicate that 2-hydroxybenzophenones are rapidly excreted in feces and urine of rats and the metabolites have been identified as glucuronides.]
	1. Acute toxicity.  [The acute oral toxicity of HMB is low with reported oral LC50s ranging from >6000 mg/kg to >12,800 mg/kg in the rat.  The surrogate compound, OH-OBP, also has low acute oral toxicity with LC50s of >10,000 and >12,000 mg/kg in the rat.  The acute dermal toxicity of HMB is very low with a reported dermal LD50 value of >16,000 mg/kg in the rabbit.  No acute inhalation toxicity studies were located for HMB or OH-OBP.  In several studies, HMB was shown not to be an eye irritant when administered to rabbits and an irritant to rabbit skin.  No skin irritation studies were found for OH-OBP, but it was not an eye irritant in rabbits.  HMB was tested for dermal sensitization in two guinea pig studies and in the mouse local lymph node assay and was not a dermal sensitizer.  OH-OBP was shown to be a dermal sensitizer in guinea pigs.]

	2. Genotoxicty. [HMB produced mixed results in the Ames Salmonella assay.  In one assay it was weakly positive in two tester strains (TA97 and TA100) and in the second assay it was negative.  In in vitro assays in Chinese hamster ovary cells, HMB was positive for inducing SCE and chromosomal aberrations.  However, in three in vivo assays, it was negative:  mouse micronucleus assay, chromosomal aberration assay in rat bone marrow and in the Drosophila SMART assay.  OH-OBP was negative in the Ames Salmonella assay and for chromosomal aberrations in an in vitro human lymphocyte assay.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [HMB has been tested for reproductive toxicity in rats and mice and for developmental toxicity in rats.  The NOAEL for reproductive toxicity in the mouse continuous breeding study conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) was 1.8 g/kg/day and the LOAEL was 4 g/kg/day.  In a study conducted by industry at Argus Laboratories to address the effects on male reproductive toxicity observed in the NTP subchronic dermal studies in B6C3F1 mice, no effects on male fertility were observed and the NOAEL in the study was >400 mg/kg/day. The NOAEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was 200 mg/kg/day in the rat teratology study.  The surrogate compound, OH-OBP, was tested for reproductive toxicity in rats:  feeding OH-OBP to rats from weaning through reproductive age for four successive generations at a level of 6000 ppm (~532.9 mg/kg/day in males and 614.3 mg/kg/day) did not produce lesions in parents or anomalies in offspring which could be attributed to treatment.  Overall, neither HMB nor OH-OBP when administered to rats or mice resulted in reproductive and/or developmental toxicity in the absence of parental and/or maternal toxicity.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [In a 90-day rat feeding study with HMB, the NOEL was 6250 ppm or approximately 312.5 mg/kg/day based on effects on platelet counts and kidney histopathology observed at 12,500 ppm (~625 mg/kg/day).  In a 90-day mouse feeding study with HMB a NOAEL was not established based on effects on sperm abnormalities observed at all dosage levels (NOAEL <468.75 mg/kg/day).

Two 90-day rat feeding studies have been conducted with OH-OBP.  In the first study, a NOAEL was established at 1.8% in the diet or approximately 900 mg/kg/day which was the highest dose tested.  In the second study, the NOAEL was >75 mg/kg/day.  In a 120-day feeding study in the dog, the NOAEL was >0.6% OH-OBP in the diet or approximately 150 mg/kg/day.

Several subchronic dermal toxicity studies are available on HMB.  In a 90-day dermal study in the rat, the NOEL was 25.0 mg/kg/day and the NOAEL is 200 mg/kg/day based on a questionable finding in platelet counts in female rats at >50 mg/kg/day.  In a mouse 90-day dermal study on HMB, a NOAEL was not established in males based on a statistically significant decrease in sperm density observed at all dosage levels tested (NOAEL <22.8 mg/kg/day).  An additional study was conducted to address the lack of a NOAEL in this study.  The study was designed to specifically address the effects of HMB on sperm parameters.  In the study, male B6C3F1 mice were dermally administered HMB.  HMB did not affect body weight gain and treatment did not result in any clinical signs of toxicity or dermal irritation.  There were no treatment-related effects on organ weights during the 90-day study or at the end of the recovery period.  In addition, there were no effects on any of the sperm parameters examined or on testicular histology.  The systemic NOEL in this study was >400 mg/kg/day.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [There are no chronic toxicity studies on HMB or the surrogate compound, OH-OBP.  There are no developmental neurotoxicity data for HMB or OH-OBP.  However, none of the developmental or reproduction studies conducted with HMB or OH-OBP showed any evidence of neurotoxicity.]

	6. Animal metabolism. [HMB administered orally or applied dermally to male rats is rapidly absorbed, metabolized and excreted.  Three metabolites were identified in plasma, tissues, urine and/or feces and included 2,4-dihydroxybenzophenone (DHB), 2,2'-dihydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone (DHMB) and 2,3,4-trihydroxy-benzophenone (THB).  DHB was formed by o-demethylation and subsequently converted into THB and DHMB, which was formed by the aromatic hydroxylation of HMB.  Urine was the major route of excretion after oral administration and feces were the major route of excretion after dermal administration.  The liver contained the highest level of HMB and its metabolites followed by kidney from either route of administration.  ]

	7. Metabolite toxicology. [A rat metabolite of HMB, 2,2'-dihydroxy-4-methoxybenzophone (DHMB), was positive in the Ames Salmonella assay (strain TA1537) in the presence of rat and hamster S-9, but not without metabolic activation.]

	8. Endocrine disruption. [From the results of the assays conducted on HMB to determine its effects on hormonal systems, it can be concluded that it appears to have very weak (if any) estrogenic activity.  HMB has been demonstrated to have both positive and negative results in the uterotrophic assay.  It has also been shown to have both positive and negative effects on MCF-7 (estrogen-sensitive human breast cancer cells).  HMB did not bind to the ERα receptor.  When positive estrogenic effects were seen, they were observed at dosages very much lower than effects observed with 17β-estradiol.  HMB has also been shown to affect the binding of E2 to the estrogen receptor and to induce the production of vitellogenin in rainbow trout and Japanese medaka.

Three metabolites of HMB were tested for estrogenic activity in one study and were shown to have some activity in the assays used.  DHB and THB competed with 17β-estradiol binding to the recombinant human estrogen receptor α in a concentration-dependent manner.  The IC50 for diethylstilbestrol was approximately 1 x 10-8M compared to 5 x 10-5 and 5 x 10-4 M for DHMB and THB, respectively.  DHB caused a concentration-dependent proliferation of MCF-7 cells from 10-8 to 10-5 M.  DHMB and THB also caused a slight increase in proliferation of MCF-7 cells at concentrations of 10-7 and 10-6 M.  17β-estradiol was effective in this assay at a concentration of 10-9 M.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. [The lowest NOAEL of 150 mg/kg/day (120-day feeding study in the dog on OH-OPB) is selected for risk characterization of chronic dietary exposures to HMB.  Assuming standard 10X uncertainty factors for inter- and intra-species variability and an FQPA safety factor of 1X, the reference dose for chronic dietary exposures of HMB, cRfD, is 1.5 mg/kg/day.]

	i. Food. [Using I-DEEM, the estimated chronic dietary exposure estimates for a generic inert ingredient that is assumed to constitute up to 50% of a formulated pesticide product are presented Table 1.  Chronic dietary exposures based on default residues on all foods range from 0.086 mg/kg/day for adults 50+ years old to 0.421 mg/kg/day for children aged 1-2 years old.  HMB is proposed to be used at no more than 25% in pesticide formulations so the dietary risks are expected to be even lower than with this I-DEEM assessment.]

	ii. Drinking water. [Chronic dietary exposures based on default residues on all foods and drinking water at 100 ppb range from 0.088 mg/kg/day for adults 50+ years old to 0.425 mg/kg/day for children aged 1-2 years old.  The chronic dietary (food + water) exposures are expressed as a percentage of the reference dose (1.5 mg/kg/day) in Table 1.  HMB is proposed to be used at no more than 25% in pesticide formulations so the dietary risks are expected to be even lower than with this I-DEEM assessment.

                  Table 1. Chronic Dietary Exposure  -  HMB (I-DEEM)

Population Subgroup
Chronic Dietary Exposure (mg/kg/d)
% RfD (1.5 mg/kg/d)
                                   Food Only
                                   Food Only
                       Food + Drinking Water at 100 ppb
                       Food + Drinking Water at 100 ppb
U.S. Population
                                     0.120
                                     0.122
                                      8%
All infants (<1 year)
                                     0.245
                                     0.252
                                      17%
Children 1-2 yrs
                                     0.421
                                     0.425
                                      28%
Children 3-5 yrs
                                     0.310
                                     0.313
                                      21%
Children 6-12 yrs
                                     0.174
                                     0.176
                                      12%
Youth 13-19 yrs
                                     0.100
                                     0.101
                                      7%
Adults 20-49 yrs
                                     0.087
                                     0.089
                                      6%
Adults 50+ yrs
                                     0.086
                                     0.088
                                      6%
Females 13-49 yrs
                                     0.087
                                     0.089
                                      6%
]

	2. Non-dietary exposure. [HMB is used as a UV-stabilizer at levels not more than 6% in sunscreen products (21 CFR § 352.10).  HMB is approved for use in pesticide formulations which are applied to non-food crops such as turf and ornamentals.]

D. Cumulative Effects

	[EPA has not made a common mechanism finding for HMB. It is therefore appropriate to consider only the potential risks of HMB in the exposure assessment.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. [A dietary exposure assessment using current EPA inert screening level methodology (I-DEEM) was conducted. Based on the conservative I-DEEM dietary exposure estimates, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the US population from the aggregate exposure to HMB included in 40 CFR § 180.920 pre-harvest use pesticide formulations.]

	2. Infants and children. [FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for pre- and post-natal toxicity and the completeness of the data base and exposure, unless EPA determines that a different margin of exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and children.
Developmental studies have been conducted on HMB and OH-OBP.  Overall, neither HMB nor OH-OBP when administered to rats or mice resulted in reproductive and/or developmental toxicity in the absence of parental and/or maternal toxicity.  The NOAEL for maternal and developmental toxicity was 200 mg/kg/day was observed in a rat teratology study on HMB.  The endpoint selected for the Rfd (150 mg/kg/day from the 120-day feeding study in the dog with OH-OPB) is protective for maternal and developmental toxicity effects, for which a NOAEL of 200 mg/kg/day was observed in a rat teratology study on HMB.
The chronic Population Adjusted Dose, cPAD, is the same as the Chronic Reference Dose (cRfD) cited above; cPAD = cRfD = 1.5 mg/kg/day.
An additional 10X safety factor is not required:
   * A scientifically sound mammalian toxicology database, which includes acute, repeated-dose oral toxicity, reproductive, and developmental toxicity study data, found no adverse effects to sensitive populations.
   * There was also no consistent evidence of effects on the nervous system in the acute, repeated-dose oral toxicity or reproduction study.
   * From the results of the assays conducted on HMB to determine its effects on hormonal systems, it can be concluded that it appears to have very weak (if any) estrogenic activity.  HMB has been demonstrated to have both positive and negative results in the uterotrophic assay.  It has also been shown to have both positive and negative effects on MCF-7 (estrogen-sensitive human breast cancer cells).  HMB did not bind to the ERα receptor.  When positive estrogenic effects were seen, they were observed at dosages very much lower than effects observed with 17β-estradiol.  HMB has also been shown to affect the binding of E2 to the estrogen receptor and to induce the production of vitellogenin in rainbow trout and Japanese medaka.]

F. International Tolerances

	[There are no known CODEX or international tolerances or tolerance exemptions established for HMB.]


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66904-66907]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27131]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68132; File No. SR-Phlx-2012-126]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To List and
Trade Option Contracts Overlying 10 Shares of Certain Securities

November 1, 2012.
    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 October 19, 2012, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``Phlx'' 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 Exchange. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to list and trade option contracts overlying
10 shares of a security (``Mini Options'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Rule 1001
(Position Limits), Rule 1012 (Series of Options Open for Trading) and
1033 (Bids and Offers--Premium) to list and trade Mini Options
overlying five (5) high-priced securities for which the standard
contract overlying the same security exhibits significant liquidity.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to list Mini Options on SPDR S&P
500 (``SPY''), Apple, Inc. (``AAPL''), SPDR Gold Trust (``GLD''),
Google Inc. (``GOOG'') and Amazon.com Inc. (``AMZN'').\3\ The Exchange
believes that this proposal would allow investors to select among
options on various high-priced and actively traded securities, each
with a unit of trading ten times lower than those of the regular-sized
options contracts, or 10 shares.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These issues were selected because they are priced greater
than $100 and are among the most actively traded issues, in that the
standard contract exhibits average daily volume (``ADV'') over the
previous three calendar months of at least 45,000 contracts,
excluding LEAPS and FLEX series. The Exchange notes that any
expansion of the program would require that a subsequent proposed
rule change be submitted to the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, with Apple Inc. (``AAPL'') trading at $605.85 on March
21, 2012, ($60,585 for 100 shares underlying a standard contract), the
605 level call expiring on March 23 was trading at $7.65. The cost of
the standard contract overlying 100 shares would be $765, which is
substantially higher in notional terms than the average equity option
price of $250.89.\4\ Proportionately equivalent mini-options contracts
on AAPL would provide investors with the ability to manage and hedge
their portfolio risk on their underlying investment, at a price of
$76.50 per contract. In addition, investors who hold a position in AAPL
at less than the round lot size would still be able to avail themselves
of

options to manage their portfolio risk. For example, the holder of 50
shares of AAPL could write covered calls for five mini-options
contracts. The table below demonstrates the proposed differences
between a mini-options contract and a standard contract with a strike
price of $125 per share and a bid or offer of $3.20 per share:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A high priced underlying security may have relatively
expensive options, because a low percentage move in the share price
may mean a large movement in the options in terms of absolute
dollars. Average non-FLEX equity option premium per contract January
1-December 31, 2011. See http://www.theocc.com/webapps/monthly-volume-reports?reportClass=equity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Standard              Mini
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Share Deliverable Upon Exercise..  100 shares........  10 shares
Strike Price.....................  125...............  125
Bid/Offer........................  3.20..............  3.20
Premium Multiplier...............  $100..............  $10
Total Value of Deliverable.......  $12,500...........  $1,250
Total Value of Contract..........  $320..............  $32
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange currently lists and trades standardized option
contracts on a number of equities and Exchange-Traded Funds (``ETFs'')
each with a unit of trading of 100 shares. Except for the difference in
the number of deliverable shares, the proposed Mini Options would have
the same terms and contract characteristics as regular-sized equity and
ETF options, including exercise style. All existing Exchange rules
applicable to options on equities and ETFs would apply to Mini Options,
except with respect to position and exercise limits and hedge
exemptions to those position limits, which would be tailored for the
smaller size. Pursuant to proposed amendments to Rule 1001, position
limits applicable to a regular-sized option contract would also apply
to the Mini Options on the same underlying security, with 10 Mini
Option contracts counting as one regular-sized contract. Positions in
both the regular-sized option contract and Mini Options on the same
security will be combined for purposes of calculating positions.
Further, hedge exemptions will apply pursuant to Rule 1001, Commentary
.07, which the Exchange proposes to revise to provide that 10 (as
opposed to 100) shares of the underlying security is the appropriate
hedge for Mini Options and to make clear that the hedge exemptions
apply to the position limits set forth in Rule 1001(a) and Rule 1001,
Commentary .02(i).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Phlx Rule 1002, Exercise Limits, refers to exercise limits
that correspond to aggregate long positions as described in Phlx
Rule 1001. Today, the position limits established in a given option
under Rule 1001 is also the exercise limit for such option. Thus,
although the proposed rule change would not amend the text of Rule
1002 (Exercise Limits) itself, the proposed amendment to Rule 1001
(Position Limits) would have a corresponding effect on the exercise
limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, of note, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') lists and trades
option contracts overlying a number of shares other than 100.\6\
Moreover, the concept of listing and trading parallel options products
of reduced values and sizes on the same underlying security is not
novel. For example, parallel product pairs on a full-value and reduced-
value basis are currently listed on the S&P 500 Index (``SPX'' and
``XSP,'' respectively), the Nasdaq 100 Index (``NDX'' and ``MNX,''
respectively) and the Russell 2000 Index (``RUT'' and ``RMN,''
respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 44025 (February 28,
2001), 66 FR 13986 (March 8, 2001) (approving SR-PCX-01-12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposal to list Mini Options will
not lead to investor confusion. There are two important distinctions
between Mini Options and regular-sized options that are designed to
ease the likelihood of any investor confusion. First, the premium
multiplier for the proposed Mini Options will be 10, rather than 100,
to reflect the smaller unit of trading. To reflect this change, the
Exchange proposes to add Rule 1033(b)(iii) which notes that bids and
offers for an option contract overlying 10 shares would be expressed in
terms of dollars per 1/10th part of the total value of the contract.
Thus, an offer of ``.50'' shall represent an offer of $5.00 on an
option contract having a unit of trading consisting of 10 shares.
Second, the Exchange intends to designate Mini Options with different
trading symbols than those designated for the regular-sized contracts.
For example, while the trading symbol for regular option contracts for
Apple, Inc. is AAPL, the Exchange proposes to adopt AAPL7 as the
trading symbol for Mini Options on that same security.
    The Exchange proposes to add a Commentary .13 to Rule 1012 to
reflect that strike prices for Mini Options shall be set at the same
level as for regular options. For example, a call series strike price
to deliver 10 shares of stock at $125 per share has a total deliverable
value of $1,250, and the strike price will be set at 125. Further,
pursuant to proposed new Commentary .13 to Rule 1012, the Exchange
proposes to not permit the listing of additional series of Mini Options
if the underlying is trading at $90 or less to limit the number of
strikes once the underlying is no longer a high priced security. The
Exchange proposes a $90.01 minimum for continued qualification so that
additional series of Mini Options that correspond to standard strikes
may be added even though the underlying has fallen slightly below the
initial qualification standard. In addition, the underlying security
must be trading above $90 for five consecutive days before the listing
of Mini Option contracts in a new expiration month. This restriction
will allow the Exchange to list strikes in Mini Options without
disruption when a new expiration month is added even if the underlying
has had a minor decline in price. The same trading rules applicable to
existing equity and ETF options would apply, including Market Maker
obligations, to Mini Options.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Rule 1014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that by listing the same strike price for Mini
Options as for regular options, the Exchange seeks to keep intact the
long-standing relationship between the underlying security and an
option strike price thus allowing investors to intuitively grasp the
option's value, i.e., option is in the money, at the money or out of
the money. The Exchange believes that by not changing anything but the
multiplier and the option symbol, as discussed above, retail investors
will be able to grasp the distinction between regular option contracts
and Mini Options. The Exchange notes that The Options Clearing
Corporation (``the OCC'') Symbology is structured for contracts that
have a deliverable of other than 100 shares to be designated with a
numeric added to the standard trading symbol. Further, the Exchange
believes that the contract characteristics of Mini Options are
consistent with the terms of the Options Disclosure Document.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle the potential additional traffic associated with the
listing and trading

of Mini Options. The Exchange has further discussed the proposed
listing and trading of Mini Options with the OCC, which has represented
that it is able to accommodate the proposal. In addition, the Exchange
would file a proposed rule change to adopt transaction fees specific to
Mini Options. The Exchange notes that the current Pricing Schedule will
not apply to the trading of mini-options contracts. The Exchange will
not commence trading of mini-option contracts until specific fees for
mini-options contracts trading have been filed with the Commission.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities and Exchange Act of
1934 (``Exchange Act''),\8\ in general, and with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Exchange 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that investors would benefit from the
introduction and availability of Mini Options by making options on high
priced securities more readily available as an investing tool at more
affordable prices, particularly for average retail investors, who
otherwise may not be able to participate in trading options on high
priced securities. The Exchange intends to adopt a different trading
symbol to distinguish Mini Options from its currently listed option
contracts and therefore, eliminate investor confusion with respect to
product distinction. Moreover, the proposed rule change is designed to
protect investors and the public interest by providing investors with
an enhanced tool to reduce risk in high priced securities. In
particular, Mini Options would provide retail customers who invest in
SPY, AAPL, GLD, GOOG and AMZN in lots of less than 100 shares with a
means of protecting their investments that is currently only available
to those who have positions of 100 shares or more. Further, the
proposed rule change is limited to just five high priced securities to
ensure that only securities that have significant options liquidity and
therefore, customer demand, are selected to have Mini Options listed on
them.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. To the contrary, the Exchange
believes that offering these products on Phlx similar to other
exchanges will provide investors with various venues in which to trade
Mini Options.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, 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 \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does
not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing. However,
Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to 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 it can list and trade the proposed
mini options as soon as it is able.\12\ The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest.\13\ The Commission notes the
proposal is substantively identical to a proposal that was recently
approved by the Commission, and does not raise any new regulatory
issues.\14\ For these reasons, the Commission designates the proposed
rule change as operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Commission notes that the Exchange's current Pricing
Schedule will not apply to the trading of mini-options contracts,
and the Exchange will not commence trading of mini-option contracts
until specific fees for mini-options contracts trading have been
filed with the Commission.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \14\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67948 (September
28, 2012), 77 FR 60735 (October 4, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-64 and
SR-ISE-2012-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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-2012-126 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-2012-126. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2012-126 and should be submitted on or before
November 28, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27131 Filed 11-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P