[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 138 (Friday, July 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43624-43625]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15436]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange

Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2(e), SEC File No. 270-37, OMB Control No. 3235-0031

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17f-2(e) (17 CFR
240.17f-2(e)), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-2(e) requires every member of a national securities
exchange, broker, dealer, registered transfer agent, and registered
clearing agency (``covered entities'') claiming an exemption from the
fingerprinting requirements of Rule 17f-2 to make and keep current a
statement entitled ``Notice Pursuant to Rule 17f-2'' (``Notice'')
containing the information specified in paragraph (e)(1) to support
their claim of exemption.
    Rule 17f-2(e) contains no filing requirement. Instead, paragraph
(e)(2) requires covered entities to keep a copy of the Notice in an
easily accessible place at the organization's principal office and at
the office employing the persons for whom exemptions are claimed and to
make the Notice available upon request for inspection by the
Commission, appropriate regulatory agency (if not the Commission) or
other designated examining authority. Notices prepared pursuant to Rule
17f-2(e) must be maintained for as long as the covered entity claims an
exemption from the fingerprinting requirements of Rule 17f-2. The
recordkeeping requirement under Rule 17f-2(e) assists the Commission
and other regulatory agencies with ensuring compliance with Rule 17f-2.
    We estimate that approximately 75 respondents will incur an average
burden of 30 minutes per year to comply with this rule, which
represents the time it takes for a staff person at a covered entity to
properly document a claimed exemption from the fingerprinting
requirements of Rule 17f-2 in the required Notice and to properly
retain the Notice according to the entity's record retention policies
and procedures. The total annual burden for all covered entities is
approximately 38 hours (75 entities x .5 hours, rounded up).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o
Cynthia Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 13, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2020-15436 Filed 7-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 214 (Wednesday, November 5, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65767-65768]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26337]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Request for Comment

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and
solicitation of public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. chapter 35), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The ICR describes the
nature of the information collection and its expected burden. A Federal
Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting public comments
on the following information collection was published on February 14,
2014 (Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 31/pp. 9038-9040).

DATES: Submit comments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
or before December 5, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Block at the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, Office of Behavioral Safety Research
(NTI-131), W46-499, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Block's phone number is 202-366-
6401 and his email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB Control Number: 2127-New.
    Title: Demonstration Tests of Different High Visibility Enforcement
Models.
    Form No.: NHTSA Forms 1121 and 1122.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Respondents: Telephone interviews will be administered to residents
in each of five selected communities who are drivers, age 18 and older,
have access to a residential landline and/or a personal cell phone, and
have consumed alcohol in the past year. In-person interviews will be
conducted in each of the five selected communities at bars or other
establishments serving alcohol with patrons age 21 and older.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: A maximum of 18,000 telephone
interviews and 6,000 in-person interviews with patrons of bars or other
establishments serving alcohol.
    Estimated Time per Response: 10 minutes per telephone interview and
10 minutes per interview with patrons of bars or other establishments
serving alcohol.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 4,000 hours.
    Frequency of Collection: There will be a maximum of three survey
waves at each of the five community sites. A telephone survey and a
survey of patrons at bars or other establishments serving alcohol will
be conducted during each survey wave, with each respondent interviewed
once. The drinking establishment interview will be split such that
questions will be asked of each respondent both during entry and exit
from the establishment.
    Abstract: Highly visible enforcement (HVE) has had the strongest
support in the research literature for effectiveness in reducing
alcohol-impaired driving. The unknown at this time is the relationship
of the amount of HVE to perceived likelihood within a community of an
alcohol-impaired driver being stopped by law enforcement. In
particular, does the perceived likelihood increase as the amount of HVE
increases? And is the optimum effect on awareness and perceived
likelihood achieved through an integrated program where HVE is
integrated into regular law enforcement operations? NHTSA proposes to
answer those questions by selecting community sites engaging in
different levels of HVE activity during a one-year period, and
measuring community awareness of those enforcement programs and the
perceived likelihood of an alcohol-impaired driver being stopped by law
enforcement.
    Data collection to assess program awareness and perceptions of
enforcement will be of two forms. Telephone surveys will be conducted
in each community, with each survey wave composed of 1,200 completed
interviews with drivers age 18 and older who have consumed alcohol in
the past year. The second form of data collection will be in-person
interviews with patrons at bars or other establishments serving
alcohol. The intent here is to collect information on program awareness
and perceived likelihood of an alcohol-impaired driver being stopped by
law enforcement from a population with a heavier concentration of
individuals at-risk of driving at illegal blood alcohol concentrations
(BACs) than one would find in a community-wide telephone survey. The
drinking establishment surveys will be conducted during the same times
of the year as the telephone surveys. Four hundred bar patrons will be
interviewed per community per survey wave, with a maximum of three
survey waves. Respondents will be asked a few questions both upon entry
and exit from the establishment. Breath samples will also be taken. The
breath test results will not be available on-site but will be
downloaded later.
    In conducting the telephone interviews, the interviewers would use
computer-assisted telephone interviewing to reduce interview length and
minimize recording errors. No personal information will be collected
that would allow any respondent to be identified. The data collection
at drinking establishments would be anonymous; no personal information
that would allow anyone to identify respondents will be collected.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street
NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments Are Invited on: whether the proposed collection of
information

is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the
Department of Transportation, including whether the information will
have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. A comment to OMB is most
effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
notice.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Issued in Washington, DC on October 31, 2014.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2014-26337 Filed 11-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 94 (Monday, May 16, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28264-28265]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11838]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64454; File No. SR-CBOE-2011-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed
Rule Change Relating to the Strategy Fee Cap and Clarifications to the
CBOE Fees Schedule

May 10, 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 April 28, 2011, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
substantially 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

    Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'' or
``Exchange'') proposes to amend its strategy fee cap program and
clarify its Fees Schedule in certain respects. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary and at
the Commission.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, CBOE 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. CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B,
and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently caps market-maker and broker-dealer
transaction fees at $1,000 for all reversals,\3\ conversions \4\ and
jelly roll \5\ strategies executed on the same trading day in the same
Flexible Exchange (FLEX) option class, excluding any option class on
which the Exchange charges the surcharge fee under Footnote 14 of the
CBOE Fees Schedule.\6\ Such transaction fees are further capped at
$25,000 per month per initiating member or firm. To qualify
transactions for the cap a rebate request with supporting documentation
must be submitted to the Exchange within 3 business days of the
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A reversal strategy is established by combining a short
security position with a short put and a long call position that
shares the same strike and expiration.
    \4\ A conversion strategy is established by combining a long
position in the underlying security with a long put and a short call
position that shares the same strike and expiration.
    \5\ A jelly roll strategy is created by entering into two
separate positions simultaneously. One position involves buying a
put and selling a call with the same strike price and expiration.
The second position involves selling a put and buying a call, with
the same strike price, but a different expiration from the first
position.
    \6\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Footnote 13 and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 61915 (April 15, 2010), 75 FR 21076 (April 22,
2010). In addition to the fee cap for reversals, conversions and
jelly rolls, Footnote 13 provides for a similar but separate fee cap
for dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 13 of the Fees Schedule to
expand the fee cap for reversals, conversions and jelly roll strategies
to non-FLEX options classes. Thus, reversals, conversions and jelly
roll strategy transactions in non-FLEX options classes would also be
eligible for the fee cap, except that any option class on which the
Exchange charges the Index License surcharge fee under Footnote 14 of
the CBOE Fees Schedule would continue to be excluded from the cap.\7\
Other exchanges also cap transaction fees resulting from reversals,
conversions and jelly roll strategies in non-FLEX options classes.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange recently renamed the surcharge fee under
Footnote 14 of the Fees Schedule the ``Index License surcharge
fee''. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64304 (April 15,
2011), 77 FR 22427 (April 21, 2011).
    \8\ See the options fee schedules of NYSE Amex, LLC and NYSE
Arca, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Exchange proposes several clarifying changes to
the Fees Schedule relating to the strategy fee cap program. First, the
Exchange proposes to amend Footnote 13 of the Fees Schedule to change
references to ``surcharge fee'' and ``license fee'' to Index License
surcharge fee, and to clarify that Index License surcharge fees
associated with dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies
(and not reversal, conversion and jelly roll strategies) will be passed
through to trading participants on these strategies on a pro-rata
basis. This is because options classes subject to the Index License
surcharge fee are not included under the fee cap for reversals,
conversions and jelly rolls. Second, the Exchange proposes to further
amend Footnote 13 by adding the definitions of reversal strategy,
conversion strategy and jelly roll strategy.\9\ Third, the Exchange
proposes to amend Footnote 10 of the Fees Schedule relating to the
Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale to clarify that contract volume
resulting from any of the strategies defined in Footnote 13 (and not
just dividend, merger and short stock interest strategies) will not
apply towards reaching the sliding scale volume thresholds because such
contracts have already received the benefit of the strategy fee
cap.\10\ Finally, for the same reason, the Exchange proposes to amend
Footnote 11 of the Fees Schedule relating to the Multiply-Listed Option
Fee Cap and CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale for Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary Orders to clarify that transaction
fees and contract volume resulting from any of the strategies defined
in Footnote 13 will not apply towards reaching the fee cap and the
sliding scale volume thresholds.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Supra footnotes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
    \10\ The Commission notes that CBOE's practice has been to not
apply contract volume resulting from any of the strategies defined
or identified in Footnote 13 (dividend, merger, short stock
interest, reversals, conversions and jelly roll strategies) towards
reaching the Liquidity Provider Sliding Scale volume thresholds. See
e-mail from Jaime Galvan, Assistant Secretary, CBOE, to Andrew
Madar, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets
(``Division''), Commission, dated May 9, 2011.
    \11\ The Commission notes that CBOE's practice has been to not
apply transaction fees and contract volume resulting from dividend,
merger and short stock interest strategies as defined in Footnote 13
towards reaching the Multiply-Listed Options Fee Cap and CBOE
Proprietary Products Sliding Scale. See e-mail from Jaime Galvan,
Assistant Secretary, CBOE, to Andrew Madar, Senior Special Counsel,
Division, Commission, dated May 9, 2011. In addition, the Multiply-
Listed Options Fee Cap and CBOE Proprietary Products Sliding Scale
applies only to ``firm'' orders, which are not elibigle for the fee
cap program for reversals, conversions and jelly rolls. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes a clean-up change to the Fees Schedule.
On December 10, 2010, the Exchange filed a proposed rule change to
increase the Options Regulatory Fee from $.004 per

contract to $.0045 per contract.\12\ The new ORF was to take effect on
January 3, 2011, therefore the old ORF rate of $.004 per contract was
not removed from Section 12(A) of the Fees Schedule at that time. The
Exchange proposes to delete the reference to the old rate of $.004 per
contract from Section 12(A) of the Fees Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63524 (December 10,
2010), 75 FR 78780 (December 16, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed fee changes will take effect on May 2, 2011.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\13\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) \14\ of the Act
in particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among CBOE
Trading Permit Holders and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is equitable, reasonable and
not unfairly discriminatory in that it would further lower fees for
market participants that trade these strategies by expanding the fee
cap for reversal, conversion and jelly roll strategies to apply to all
options classes traded on the Exchange except those which are subject
to the Index License surcharge fee. In addition, the proposed rule
change would allow the Exchange to remain competitive with other
exchanges that offer similar fee cap programs.\15\ The proposed rule
change would also clarify portions of the Fees Schedule relating to the
strategy fee cap program and the Options Regulatory Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \15\ Supra footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of purposes of the Act.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \16\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-
4.\17\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(a)(ii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2011-043 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-CBOE-2011-043. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for 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 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-CBOE-2011-043 and should be
submitted on or before June 6, 2011.

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

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

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-11838 Filed 5-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56288-56289]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25603]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82134; File No. SR-MRX-2017-25]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Remove Directed
Order Functionality

November 21, 2017.
    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 November 16, 2017, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III, below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. 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 remove Directed Order \3\ functionality on
MRX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A ``Directed Order'' is an order routed from an Electronic
Access Member to an Exchange market maker through the Exchange's
System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Last year the Exchange filed to delay the implementation of the
Directed

Order functionality in conjunction with a replatform to INET.\4\ INET
is the proprietary core technology utilized across Nasdaq's global
markets and utilized on The Nasdaq Options Market LLC (``NOM''), Nasdaq
PHLX LLC (``Phlx'') and Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'') (collectively,
``Nasdaq Exchanges''). MRX was migrated to INET technology in 2017.
With the migration, MRX delayed the implementation of the Directed
Order functionality to stage the re-platform to provide maximum benefit
to its Members while also ensuring a successful rollout. At that time,
the Exchange noted that the Exchange will introduce the Directed Order
functionality within one year from the date of this filing, otherwise
the Exchange will file a rule proposal with the Commission to remove
these rules. The Exchange filed the initial rule change on May 17,
2017.\5\ The Exchange has determined at this time not to offer Directed
Order functionality. If the Exchange determines to offer this
functionality at a later date a rule proposal will be filed at that
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81204 (July 25,
2017), 82 FR 35557 (July 31, 2017) (SR-MRX-2017-02).
    \5\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it is designed 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
because the Exchange will remove rule text related to functionality
which will not be offered on MRX. The current rule text indicates the
functionality is not offered today. The Exchange believes that removing
Rule 811 from the Rulebook will avoid confusion as to whether this
functionality will be enabled in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market
competition because the Exchange is not offering this functionality
today and believes there is no interest among Members for this
functionality.

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 does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \8\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2017-25 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2017-25. 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. 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-MRX-2017-25 and should be
submitted on or before December 19, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25603 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 198 (Monday, October 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48071-48072]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22274]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC18-2-000.
    Applicants: Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, Sempra Energy.
    Description: Joint Application for Expedited Approval of the
Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities under Section 203 of the FPA
of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20171005-5145.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2487-004; ER15-2380-002.
    Applicants: Pacific Summit Energy LLC, Willey Battery Utility, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 27, 2017 Triennial Market Power
Update for the Northeast Region of the Sumitomo Companies.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1029-003.
    Applicants: Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.
    Description: Clarification to June 30, 2017 Triennial Market Power
Update for

the Northeast Region of Chubu TT Energy Management Inc.
    Filed Date: 10/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20171005-5153.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2340-000.
    Applicants: Golden Hills North Wind, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to August 21, 2017 Golden Hills North Wind,
LLC tariff.
    Filed Date: 10/4/17.
    Accession Number: 20171004-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2381-000.
    Applicants: Scott-II Solar LLC.
    Description: Third Supplement to August 30, 2017 Scott-II Solar LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5099.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2017-10-05 Amendment to Filing to
Correct Tariff Record RSI Phase 1B and Phase 2 to be effective 2/15/
2018.
    Filed Date: 10/5/17.
    Accession Number: 20171005-5139.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/26/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-33-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Niagara Mohawk filing--
cancellation of SGIA 1488 w/Selkirk Cogen Partners to be effective 12/
6/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5027.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-34-000.
    Applicants: Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: MAIT submits Engineering and
Construction Services Agreement SA No. 4718 to be effective 12/6/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-35-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: PSCo-HLYCRS-O&M Agrmt-430-
0.0.0 Filing to be effective 6/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-36-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Queue Position #AA1-043,
Original Service Agreement No. 4807 to be effective 9/6/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-37-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: GIA & Amended DSA Phoenix
Wind Project SA Nos 971 & 17 to be effective 10/7/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-38-000.
    Applicants: DV Trading, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: DV Trading New Company's
Tariff (Initial Tariff Baseline) to be effective 10/15/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-39-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-06_Continuous
Improvement_Misc Revisions, Improvements & Clarifications to be
effective 12/6/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5163.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-40-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2017-10-06_Continuous
Improvement 2_Developer Recertification Enhancements to be effective
12/6/2017.
    Filed Date: 10/6/17.
    Accession Number: 20171006-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/27/17.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES18-2-000.
    Applicants: Mississippi Power Company.
    Description: Application of Mississippi Power Company for Extension
of Authorization to Issue Securities under Section 204 of the Federal
Power Act and of Exemption from Competitive Bidding Requirements and
Request for Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 10/4/17.
    Accession Number: 20171004-5177.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 6, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-22274 Filed 10-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 139 (Monday, July 20, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43702-43706]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14401]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0571; FRL-10010-64]

Magnesium Sulfate; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes exemptions from the requirement of
a tolerance for residues of magnesium sulfate anhydrous (CAS Reg. No.
7487-88-9); magnesium sulfate monohydrate (CAS Reg. No. 14168-73-1);
magnesium sulfate trihydrate (CAS Reg. No. 15320-30-6); magnesium
sulfate tetrahydrate (CAS Reg. No. 24378-31-2); magnesium sulfate
pentahydrate (CAS Reg. No. 15553-21-6); magnesium sulfate hexahydrate
(CAS Reg. No. 17830-18-1); and magnesium sulfate heptahydrate (CAS Reg.
No. 10034-99-8), collectively referred to as magnesium sulfate, when
used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations
applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-
processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils at an
end-use concentration not to exceed 4400 parts per million (ppm).
Ecolab, Inc. submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of exemptions from
the requirement of a tolerance for magnesium sulfate. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of magnesium sulfate when used in accordance with these
exemptions.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 20, 2020. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 18, 2020,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0571, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Please note that due to the public health emergency the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room was closed to public visitors on March
31, 2020. Our EPA/DC staff will continue to provide customer service
via email, phone, and webform. For further information on EPA/DC
services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/
DC and Reading Room, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural

producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following
list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes
is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help
readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially
affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Publishing Office's e-CFR site at
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file
an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0571 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
September 18, 2020. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0571, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 4, 2020 (85 FR 6129) (FRL-
10003-17), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11325) by Ecolab, Inc., 1 Ecolab Place, St. Paul, MN 55102. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.940(a) be amended by establishing
exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
magnesium sulfate when used as an inert ingredient at an upper limit of
4,400 ppm in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-
contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment,
and food-processing equipment and utensils. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Ecolab, Inc., the petitioner, which
is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. One comment was
received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is
discussed in Unit V.B.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of the FFDCA
defines ``safe'' to mean that EPA has determined that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but it does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing an exemption and to ``ensure that
there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance may be established. Consistent with FFDCA section
408(c)(2)(A) and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B),
EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant
information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to
assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure
to magnesium sulfate, including exposure resulting from the exemptions
established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks
associated with magnesium sulfate follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    Magnesium and sulfate are both abundant in the natural enviroment
and are necessary for human life. Magnesium sulfate is commonly found
in food and water, including as a naturally occuring element or as an
additive. EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data for magnesium
sulfate and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as
well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk.
EPA has also considered available information concerning the
variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of
consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the
studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by
magnesium sulfate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level
(NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the
toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    Available studies on magnesium sulfate include an oral toxicity
study, a dermal irritation study, a dermal sensitization study, a
combined oral repeat dose reproduction/developmental toxicity screening
test, and a 1-year inhalation cancer study in rats. No adverse effects
of treatment were seen at the highest dose tested in the repeat dose
oral study in rats at the NOAEL of 450 mg/kg/day. In addition, there
was no evidence of carcinogenicity or neuropathological changes or
effects reported in any of the studies. Magnesium sulfate was also
tested for genotoxic and/or mutagenic effects using bacterial reverse
mutation tests and in vitro mammalian chromosome aberration tests. The
agency does not believe magnesium sulfate will be carcinogenic or
neurotoxic.
    All studies showed low acute and repeat dose toxicity and no
reproductive/developmental toxicity. The primary health effect
associated with magnesium sulfate is an osmotic laxative effect at high
doses. The laxative effect is transient, and recovery is rapid and is
usually observed only when following acute exposures to high
concentrations above the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    No toxicological endpoint of concern for magnesium sulfate has been
identified in the database.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food, feed uses, and drinking water. In
evaluating dietary exposure to magnesium sulfate, EPA considered
exposure under the current and proposed exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. Magnesium sulfate is currently exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.910 for use as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations used pre- and post-harvest.
Dietary exposure to magnesium sulfate may occur from eating foods
treated with pesticide formulations containing this inert ingredient
and drinking water containing runoff from soils containing the treated
crops. In addition, magnesium sulfate is used as a food additive and a
dietary supplement. However, no toxicological endpoint of concern was
identified for magnesium sulfate and therefore, a quantitative
assessment of dietary exposure is not necessary.
    2. Non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is used
in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure
(e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming pools, and
hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables). Residential
exposure to magnesium sulfate may occur based on its use as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations registered for residential uses.
Additional non-dietary exposure may occur from use of magnesium sulfate
in pharmaceutical products and cosmetics. However, no toxicological
endpoint of concern was identified for magnesium sulfate and therefore
a quantitative residential exposure assessment for magnesium sulfate
was not conducted.
    3. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found magnesium sulfate to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and magnesium sulfate does not
appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For
the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
magnesium sulfate does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of the FFDCA requires EPA to retain an
additional tenfold margin of safety in the case of threshold effects to
ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. As noted in Unit IV.B., there is no indication of threshold
effects being caused by magnesium sulfate. Therefore, this requirement
does not apply to the present analysis. Moreover, due to the lack of
any toxicological endpoints of concern, EPA conducted a qualitative
assessment of magnesium sulfate, which does not use safety factors for
assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing
risk to infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    Taking into consideration all available information on magnesium
sulfate, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm to the general population or any population subgroup, including
infants and children, will result from aggregate exposure to magnesium
sulfate residues. Therefore, the establishment of exemptions from the
requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of
magnesium sulfate when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial
pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public
eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing
equipment and utensils at a maximum end-use concentration of 4,400 ppm
is safe under FFDCA section 408.

V. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

B. Response to Comments

    One comment was submitted generally opposing the establishment of
these tolerance exemptions and chemical use overall. Although the
Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that chemicals should
be banned, the existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the
FFDCA authorizes EPA to establish exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance when it determines that the exemption is safe. Upon
consideration of the validity, completeness, and reliability of the
available data as well

as other factors the FFDCA requires EPA to consider, EPA has determined
that this exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is safe. The
commenter provided no information to support a conclusion that the
exemption was not safe.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance are
established under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of magnesium sulfate
anhydrous (CAS Reg. No. 7487-88-9); magnesium sulfate monohydrate (CAS
Reg. No. 14168-73-1); magnesium sulfate trihydrate (CAS Reg. No. 15320-
30-6); magnesium sulfate tetrahydrate (CAS Reg. No. 24378-31-2);
magnesium sulfate pentahydrate (CAS Reg. No. 15553-21-6); magnesium
sulfate hexahydrate (CAS Reg. No. 17830-18-1); and magnesium sulfate
heptahydrate (CAS Reg. No. 10034-99-8) when used as an inert ingredient
in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact
surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-
processing equipment and utensils at an end-use concentration not to
exceed 4,400 ppm.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerance exemptions under FFDCA section
408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), nor is it considered a
regulatory action under Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
Tribal governments, on the relationship between the National Government
and the States or Tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
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. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 22, 2020.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR
chapter I as follows:

PART 180--TOLERANCES AND EXEMPTIONS FOR PESTICIDE CHEMICAL RESIDUES
IN FOOD

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.940, amend the table in paragraph (a) by adding, in
alphabetical order, ``Magnesium sulfate anhydrous'', ``Magnesium
sulfate heptahydrate'', ``Magnesium sulfate hexahydrate'', ``Magnesium
sulfate monohydrate'', ``Magnesium sulfate pentahydrate'', ``Magnesium
sulfate tetrahydrate'', and ``Magnesium sulfate trihydrate'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.940  Tolerance exemptions for active and inert ingredients
for use in antimicrobial formulations (Food-contact surface sanitizing
solutions).

* * * * *
    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Pesticide chemical         CAS Reg. No.            Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Magnesium sulfate anhydrous....       7487-88-9  When ready for use, the
                                                  end-use concentration
                                                  is not to exceed 4400
                                                  ppm.
Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate.      10034-99-8  When ready for use, the
                                                  end-use concentration
                                                  is not to exceed 4400
                                                  ppm.
Magnesium sulfate hexahydrate..       7830-18-1  When ready for use, the
                                                  end-use concentration
                                                  is not to exceed 4400
                                                  ppm.
Magnesium sulfate monohydrate..      14168-73-1  When ready for use, the
                                                  end-use concentration
                                                  is not to exceed 4400
                                                  ppm.
Magnesium sulfate pentahydrate.       5553-21-6  When ready for use, the
                                                  end-use concentration
                                                  is not to exceed 4400
                                                  ppm.
Magnesium sulfate tetrahydrate.      24378-31-2  When ready for use, the
                                                  end-use concentration
                                                  is not to exceed 4400
                                                  ppm.
Magnesium sulfate trihydrate...      15320-30-6  When ready for use, the
                                                  end-use concentration
                                                  is not to exceed 4400
                                                  ppm.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-14401 Filed 7-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61765]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-86]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Notice of Technical
Conference

October 13, 2006.

Midwest Independent Transmission System  Docket No. ER05-6-044, Docket
 Operator, Inc.                           No. ER05-6-054, Docket No.
                                          ER05-6-055.
Midwest Independent Transmission System  Docket No. EL04-135-046, Docket
 Operator, Inc. and PJM                   No. EL04-135-056, Docket No.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.                  EL04-135-057.
Midwest Independent Transmission System  Docket No. EL02-111-064, Docket
 Operator, Inc. and PJM                   No. EL02-111-074, Docket No.
 Interconnection, L.L.C.                  EL02-111-075.
Ameren Services Company................  Docket No. EL03-212-060, Docket
                                          No. EL03-212-070, Docket No.
                                          EL03-212-071.

    Take notice that the Commission will convene a technical conference
on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, at 9 a.m., in room 3M-1 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. As required by the September 21, 2006, order in Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc., 116 FERC ] 61,260
(2006), the conference will discuss proposals to allocate between
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. and PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C., the cost responsibility for constructing
facilities that benefit both regional transmission organizations.
    The conference is open for the public to attend. The conference
will not be transcribed and telephone participation will not be
available.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please
send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    For more information about the conference, please contact: Fernando
Rodriguez at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-17474 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P