[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1969-1971]
[FR Doc No: 2012-419]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66115; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2011-101]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE
Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services
Replacing Numerical Thresholds With Percentage Thresholds for the
Investor Tiers' Volume Requirements

January 6, 2012.
    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 December 30, 2011, 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 Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of
Fees and Charges for Exchange Services (the ``Schedule'') to replace
numerical thresholds with percentage thresholds for the Investor Tiers'
volume requirements. The text of the proposed rule change is available
at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room, and
www.nyse.com.

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
    Effective January 1, 2012, NYSE Arca proposes to amend the
Schedule, as described below.
Investor Tier Volume Requirements: Replacing Numerical Thresholds With
Percentage Thresholds
    Effective June 1, 2011, NYSE Arca introduced two pricing tier
levels, Investor Tier 1 and Investor Tier 2.\4\ Currently, Investor
Tier 1 allows customers to earn a credit of $0.0032 per share and
Investor Tier 2 allows customers to earn a credit of $0.0030 per share
for executed orders that provide liquidity to the Book for Tape A, Tape
B and Tape C securities when they meet all of the following criteria on
a monthly basis:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64593 (June 3,
2011), 74 FR 33380 (June 8, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-34)[sic].

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

     Maintain a ratio of cancelled orders to total orders of
less than 30%. In calculating this ratio, the Exchange will exclude
Immediate-or-Cancel orders, which are liquidity removing in nature.
     Maintain a ratio of executed liquidity adding volume to
total volume of greater than 80%.
     Firms must add at least 35 million shares of liquidity per
day on NYSE Arca to qualify for Investor Tier 1 and add at least 10
million shares of liquidity per day on NYSE Arca to qualify for
Investor Tier 2. Trade activity on days when the market closes early is
excluded from both Investor Tiers.
    The Exchange proposes to change the Investor Tier 1 and Investor
Tier 2 adding volume requirements from numerical thresholds (e.g., 35
million shares) to percentage thresholds of average US consolidated
daily volumes (e.g., 0.45% of the volumes). Volume requirements to
reach the tiered pricing levels will adjust each calendar month based
on US average daily consolidated share volume in Tape A, Tape B, and
Tape C securities (``US ADV'') for that given month. US ADV is equal to
the volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to
the Consolidated Tape Association Plan for Tapes A, B and C securities;
however, US ADV does not include trades on days when the market closes
early.
    Transactions that are not reported to the Consolidated Tape, such
as odd-lots and Crossing Session 2 transactions, are not included in US
ADV. The Exchange currently makes this data publicly available on a T +
1 basis from a link at http://www.nyxdata.com/US-and-European-Volumes.
    In order to adopt a requirement that is consistent from month to
month, NYSE Arca is modifying both the 35 million share volume per day
requirement (for Investor Tier 1) and 10 million share volume per day
requirement (for Investor Tier 2) so that they are directly tied to a
customer's percentage of total US ADV. Effective January 1, the per day
volume requirement for Investor Tier 1 will be changed from the current
35 million share adding volume per day requirement to adding liquidity
that represents 0.45% or more of the total US ADV. Also effective
January 1, the per day volume requirements for Investor Tier 2 will be
changed from the current 10 million share adding volume per day
requirement to adding liquidity that represents 0.20% or more, but less
than 0.45% of the total US ADV. All other requirements for Investor
Tier 1 and Investor Tier 2 remain unchanged.
    For example, if US ADV is 8.5 billion shares in a given month, the
minimum adding ADV requirement for Investor Tier 1 would be 38.250
million adding shares a day, and the minimum adding ADV requirement for
Investor Tier 2 would be 17.0 million adding shares a day.
    NYSE Arca is moving to the percentage approach for several reasons.
The Exchange believes that it is a more straightforward way to
communicate floating volume tiers and, as noted in a previous filing,
other exchanges have adopted a similar approach.\5\ The Exchange notes
that the percentage approach allows tiers to move in sync with
consolidated volume, whereas the current approach has distinct break
points and is set at varying percentages of consolidated volume. The
proposed change will ensure that a customer providing that level of
liquidity will consistently receive the Investor Tier 1 or Tier 2
credits, whereas a customer providing that level of liquidity under the
current schedule might receive the Investor Tier 1 or Tier 2 credits in
some months but not in others as overall market volumes fluctuated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64627 (June 8,
2011), 74 FR 34788 (June 14, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-35)[sic]. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64453 (May 10, 2011), 76 FR
28252 (May 16, 2011); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64452
(May 10, 2011), 76 FR 28252 (May 16, 2011) [sic]. See Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC Price List--Trading & Connectivity, ``Add and Remove
Rates'' at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Trader.aspx?id=PriceListTrading2#rebates, and EDGX Exchange Fee
Schedule, n. 1 at http://www.directedge.com/Membership/FeeSchedule/EDGXFeeSchedule.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\6\ in general, and Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in
particular, in that it is designed to provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange believes
that the proposal does not constitute an inequitable allocation of
fees, as all similarly situated member organizations and other market
participants will be charged the same amount and access to the
Exchange's market is offered on fair and non-discriminatory terms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the replacement of share thresholds with percentage
thresholds for the adding liquidity requirements in the Investor Tiers,
NYSE Arca believes that the change is reasonable, because it will
result in more predictability from month to month with respect to the
levels of liquidity provision required to receive the applicable
pricing levels. Although the changes will make it easier to achieve the
applicable Investor Tier in some months and more difficult in other
months, depending on overall market volumes, NYSE Arca believes the
levels of activity required to achieve the applicable Investor Tier are
generally consistent with existing requirements for these tiers.
Moreover, like existing pricing tiers tied to volume levels, as in
effect at NYSE Arca and other markets, the proposed pricing tiers are
equitable and non-discriminatory because they are open to all customers
on an equal basis and provide discounts that are reasonably related to
the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher
volumes. NYSE Arca believes that the overall effect of the changes may
make it easier for customers to receive higher rebates in months with
lower trading volumes, thereby reducing prices for those customers that
were previously unable to qualify for an enhanced credit, but that are
able to do so under the revised pricing schedule.
    NYSE Arca also notes that a number of exchanges previously adopted
tiers based on percentage thresholds, including Nasdaq, and Direct Edge
EDGX.\8\ NYSE Arca also previously adopted tiers based on percentage
thresholds for its Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See n. 5.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64627 (June 8,
2011), 74 FR 34788 (June 14, 2011) (SR-NYSEArca-2011-35)[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust
its fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with
alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance
with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. The Exchange
believes that the proposed rule change reflects this competitive
environment because it will broaden the conditions under which
customers may qualify for higher liquidity provider credits.

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.

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 is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \10\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \11\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-2011-101 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-NYSEArca-2011-101. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of 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-NYSEArca-2011-101 and should
be submitted on or before February 2, 2012.

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

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-419 Filed 1-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 97 (Wednesday, May 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28925-28928]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12238]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 174 and 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0032; FRL-9927-39]

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions Filed for Residues of
Pesticide Chemicals in or on Various Commodities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the Agency's receipt of several
initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or
on various commodities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number and the pesticide petition number (PP) of interest as shown
in the body of this document, 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 Confidential Business
Information (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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(RD) (7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the
mailing address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail
code. The division to contact is listed at the end of each pesticide
petition summary.

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).
    If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for the division listed at the end of the
pesticide petition summary of interest.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low-income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    EPA is announcing its receipt of several pesticide petitions filed
under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of
regulations in 40 CFR part 174 and/or part 180 for residues of
pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is
taking

public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners.
EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has
determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document
contain the data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the
sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data
support granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the
public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be
warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final
determination on these pesticide petitions.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), a summary of each of the petitions
that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioner, is
included in a docket EPA has created for each rulemaking. The docket
for each of the petitions is available at http://www.regulations.gov.
    As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA
is publishing notice of the petition so that the public has an
opportunity to comment on this request for the establishment or
modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food
commodities. Further information on the petition may be obtained
through the petition summary referenced in this unit.

New Tolerances

    1. PP 4F8339. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0215). Monsanto Company, 1300 I
Street NW., Suite 450 East, Washington, DC 20005, requests to establish
a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of the sum of the
nematicide, tioxazafen (MON 102100) (3-phenyl-5-(2-thienyl)-1,2,4-
oxadiazole) and its metabolite, benzamidine (benzenecarboximidamide) in
or on the following raw agricultural and processed commodities: Corn,
field, forage at 0.01 parts per million (ppm); Corn, field, grain at
0.01 ppm; Corn, field, stover at 0.02 ppm; Cotton, gin byproducts at
0.02 ppm; Cotton, undelinted seed at 0.01 ppm; Soybean, forage at 0.15
ppm; Soybean, hay at 0.3 ppm; Soybean, meal at 0.05 ppm; Soybean, seed
at 0.04 ppm; and in or on the following food commodities: Cattle, fat
at 0.01 ppm; Cattle, meat at 0.01 ppm; Cattle, meat byproducts at 0.01
ppm; Goat, fat at 0.01 ppm; Goat, meat at 0.01 ppm; Goat, meat
byproducts at 0.01 ppm; Horse, fat at 0.01 ppm; Horse, meat at 0.01
ppm; Horse, meat byproducts at 0.01 ppm; Milk at 0.01 ppm; Sheep, fat
at 0.01 ppm; Sheep, meat at 0.01 ppm; and Sheep, meat byproducts at
0.01 ppm. The Monsanto Company has submitted an independently validated
analytical method for the residue analysis of parent tioxazafen and its
metabolite, benzamidine, in crop and processed commodities for corn,
cotton, and soybean. Additionally, an independently validated method
has been used in cattle and hen feeding studies for the analysis of
residues in the food commodities animal meat, fat, liver, kidney,
cream, and milk, and poultry meat, fat, liver, and eggs, and is
proposed for enforcement of requested tolerances in animal food
commodities. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 4E8334. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0035). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the herbicide clethodim, including its metabolites and
degradates, determined by measuring only the sum of clethodim, 2-[(1E)-
1-[[[(2E)-3-chloro-2-propenyl]oxy]imino]propyl]-5-[2-
(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-cyclohexen-1-one, and its metabolites
containing the 5-(2-ethylthiopropyl)cyclohexene-3-one and 5-(2-
ethylthiopropyl)-5-hydroxycyclohexene-3-one moieties and their
sulphoxides and sulphones, calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent
of clethodim, in or on the raw agricultural commodities: Onion, bulb
subgroup 3-07A at 0.2 parts per million (ppm), Vegetable, fruiting
group 08-10 at 1.0 ppm, Fruit, pome group 11-10 at 0.2 ppm, Fruit,
stone group 12-12 at 0.2 ppm, Berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G,
except cranberry at 3.0 ppm, Rapeseed subgroup 20A, except flax at 0.5
ppm, Sunflower subgroup 20B at 5.0 ppm, Cottonseed subgroup 20C at 1.0
ppm and Stevia at 12 ppm. Analytical methodology has been developed and
validated for enforcement purposes. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) of
clethodim in the method(s) is 0.2 ppm, which will allow monitoring of
food with residues at the levels proposed for the tolerances. Contact:
RD.
    3. PP 5E8349. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0197). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide fluazinam (3-chloro-N-[3-chloro-2,6-dinitro-
4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinamine),
including its metabolites and degradates in or on mayhaw at 2.0 parts
per million (ppm); cabbage at 3.0 ppm; the squash/cucumber subgroup 9B
at 0.05 ppm; and vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C at 0.02 ppm.
An analytical method using LC-MS/MS for the determination of fluazinam
and AMGT residues on cabbage, squash and cucumbers has been developed
and validated. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 5F8352. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0263). ISK Biosciences Corporation,
7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, Ohio 44077, requests to establish a
tolerance in 40 CFR part 180.601 for residues of the fungicide,
cyazofamid, in or on Bulb Vegetables (Crop Group 3-07) at 2.0 parts per
million (ppm). The residues are extracted with acetonitrile. After
shaking and centrifugation, the extracts are diluted 4 fold with a 50%
acetonitrile/water and filtered through a PTFE filter. The filtrate is
diluted 5 fold with 50/50 acetonitrile/water. LC/MS/MS is used to
measure and evaluate the chemicals cyazofamid and CCIM. Contact: RD.
    5. PP 5E8350. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0263). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of the fungicide cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-dimethyl-5-
(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide and its metabolite 4-
chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile, calculated as
the stoichiometric equivalent of cyazofamid in or on the following raw
agricultural commodity: Herb subgroup 19A at 90 parts per million
(ppm). Analytical methodology has been developed and validated for
enforcement purposes. Contact: RD.
    6. PP 4E8337. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0030). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for
residues of carfentrazone-ethyl (ethyl-alpha-2-dichloro-5-[4-
(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-
fluorobenzene-propanoate) and the metabolite carfentrazone-ethyl
chloropropionic acid ([alpha],2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-
dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoic
acid)] in or on the raw agricultural commodity artichoke at 0.1 parts
per million (ppm); asparagus at 0.25 ppm; peppermint, tops at 0.25 ppm;
spearmint, tops at 0.25 ppm; teff, grain at 0.25 ppm; teff, forage at
1.00 ppm; teff, hay at 0.30 ppm; teff, straw at 0.10 ppm; vegetable,
bulb, group 3-07 at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10 at 0.10
ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10-10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, pome, group 11-10
at

0.10 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12-12 at 0.10 ppm; caneberry subgroup 13-
07A at 0.10 ppm; bushberry subgroup 13-07B at 0.10 ppm; fruit, small
vine climbing, subgroup 13-07F, except fuzzy kiwi fruit at 0.10 ppm;
berry, low growing, subgroup 13-07G at 0.10 ppm; nut, tree, group 14-12
at 0.10 ppm; oilseed group 20 at 0.20 ppm; grain, cereal forage group
16 at 1.0 ppm; grain, cereal, hay, group 16 at 0.30 ppm; grain cereal,
stover, group 16 at 0.80 ppm; and grain, cereal, straw, group 16 at 3.0
ppm. There is a practical analytical method for detecting and measuring
levels of carfentrazone-ethyl and its metabolite in or on food with a
limit of quantitation that allows monitoring of food with residues at
or above the levels set or proposed in the tolerances. Contact: RD.
    7. PP 4F8291. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0012). Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W.
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709,
requests to establish a tolerance in 40 CFR part 180 for residues of
the fungicide, pyrimethanil, in or on caneberry (subgroup 13-07A) at
15.0 parts per million (ppm) and bushberry (subgroup 13-07B) at 8.0
ppm. The HPLC/MS/MS is used to measure and evaluate the chemical
pyrimethanil. Contact: RD.

Amended Tolerances

    1. PP 5E8349. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0197). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
New Jersey 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.574
for residues of the fungicide fluazinam (3-chloro-N-[3-chloro-2,6-
dinitro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-5-(trifluoromethyl)-2-pyridinamine),
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the vegetable,
brassica leafy, group 5 at 0.01 by changing it to read ``vegetable,
brassica leafy, group 5, except cabbage'' at 0.01 ppm and by removing
the existing tolerance on potato at 0.02 ppm upon approval of the
requested tolerance on the tuberous and corm subgroup 1C. An analytical
method using LC-MS/MS for the determination of fluazinam and AMGT
residues on cabbage, squash and cucumbers has been developed and
validated. Contact: RD.
    2. PP 4E8334. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0035). IR-4, 500 College Road East,
Suite 201W, Princeton, NJ 08540, requests to remove the existing
tolerances in 40 CFR part 180.458 for residues of the herbicide
clethodim, including its metabolites and degradates, determined by
measuring only the sum of clethodim, 2-[(1E)-1-[[[(2E)-3-chloro-2-
propenyl]oxy]imino]propyl]-5-[2-(ethylthio)propyl]-3-hydroxy-2-
cyclohexen-1-one, and its metabolites containing the 5-(2-
ethylthiopropyl)cyclohexene-3-one and 5-(2-ethylthiopropyl)-5-
hydroxycyclohexene-3-one moieties and their sulphoxides and sulphones,
calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of clethodim, in or on the
raw agricultural commodities: Canola seed, at 0.5 ppm, cotton,
undelinted seed at 1.0 ppm, peach at 0.2 ppm, onion, bulb at 0.2 ppm,
strawberry at 3.0 ppm, and sunflower, seed at 5.0 ppm, upon
establishment of the aforementioned tolerances under ``New Tolerances''
above for this petition. Analytical methodology has been developed and
validated for enforcement purposes. The limit of quantitation (LOQ) of
clethodim in the method(s) is 0.2 ppm, which will allow monitoring of
food with residues at the levels proposed for the tolerances. Contact:
RD.
    3. PP 5E8350. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0263). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to remove the existing tolerances in 40 CFR part
180.601 for residues of the fungicide cyazofamid, 4-chloro-2-cyano-N,N-
dimethyl-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-1-sulfonamide and its
metabolite 4-chloro-5-(4-methylphenyl)-1H-imidazole-2-carbonitrile
(CA), calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of cyazofamid in or
on basil, dried leaves at 90 parts per million (ppm); and basil, fresh
leaves at 30 ppm, upon approval of the aforementioned tolerance on herb
subgroup 19A. Analytical methodology has been developed and validated
for enforcement purposes. Contact: RD.
    4. PP 4E8337. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0030). Interregional Research
Project Number 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201W, Princeton,
NJ 08540, requests to amend the tolerances in 40 CFR 180.515 for
residues of carfentrazone-ethyl (ethyl-alpha-2-dichloro-5-[4-
(difluoromethyl)-4,5-dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-
fluorobenzene-propanoate) and the metabolite carfentrazone-ethyl
chloropropionic acid ([alpha],2-dichloro-5-[4-(difluoromethyl)-4,5-
dihydro-3-methyl-5-oxo-1H-1,2,4-triazol-1-yl]-4-fluorobenzenepropanoic
acid)] as follows: (1) To modify the existing tolerance for banana from
0.20 ppm to 0.10 ppm and (2) to remove the following established
tolerances: Vegetable, bulb group 3 at 0.10 ppm; vegetable, fruiting,
group 8 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, citrus, group 10 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, pome,
group 11 at 0.10 ppm; fruit, stone, group 12 at 0.10 ppm; berry group
13 at 0.10 ppm; borage at 0.10 ppm; grape at 0.10 ppm; caneberry
subgroup 13A at 0.10 ppm; nut, tree group 14 at 0.10 ppm; pistachio at
0.10 ppm; pummelo at 0.10 ppm; kiwi fruit at 0.10 ppm; canola at 0.10
ppm; cotton, undelinted seed at 0.20 ppm; crambe, seed at 0.10 ppm;
flax, seed at 0.10 ppm; rapeseed, seed at 0.10 ppm; okra at 0.10 ppm;
safflower seed at 0.10 ppm; salal at 0.10 ppm; sunflower seed at 0.10
ppm; strawberry at 0.10 ppm; juneberry at 0.10 ppm; lingonberry at 0.10
ppm; mustard, seed at 0.10 ppm; barley bran at 0.80 ppm; barley, flour
at 0.80 ppm; corn, field, forage at 0.20 ppm; corn, sweet, forage at
0.20 ppm, corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husk removed at 0.10 ppm;
grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw group 16, except corn and
sorghum; forage at 1.0 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw,
group 16, hay at 0.30 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw,
group 16, stover at 0.30 ppm; grain, cereal, forage, fodder and straw,
group 16, except rice; straw at 0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, group 15 at
0.10 ppm; grain, cereal, stover at 0.80 ppm; grain, cereal, straw at
3.0 ppm; millet, flour at 0.80 ppm; oat, flour at 0.80 ppm; rice, straw
at 1.0 ppm; rye, bran at 0.80 ppm; rye, flour at 0.80 ppm; sorghum,
forage at 0.20 ppm; sorghum, sweet at 0.10 ppm; wheat, bran at 0.80
ppm; wheat, flour at 0.80 ppm; wheat, germ at 0.80 ppm; wheat,
middlings at 0.80 ppm; and wheat, shorts at 0.80 ppm. There is a
practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of
carfentrazone-ethyl and its metabolite in or on food with a limit of
quantitation that allows monitoring of food with residues at or above
the levels set or proposed in the tolerances. Contact: RD.

New Tolerance Exemptions

    1. PP IN-10753. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0214). Drexel Chemical Company,
P.O. Box 13327, Memphis, TN 38113-0327, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
tetraethylene glycol (CAS Reg. No. 112-60-7) when used as an inert
ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops only
under 40 CFR 180.920. The petitioner believes no analytical method is
needed because it is not required for an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    2. PP IN-10759. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0232). Cytec Industries Inc., 5
Garret Mountain Plaza Woodland Park, NJ 07424, requests to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of poly(oxy-
1,2-

ethanediyl), [alpha]-(3-carboxy-1-oxosulfopropyl)-[omega]-hydroxy,
alkyl ethers, disodium salts (CAS Reg. Nos. 68815-56-5, 68954-91-6,
1013906-64-3, 1024612-24-5), when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural
commodities under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    3. PP IN-10760. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0213). Cytec Industries, Inc., 5
Garret Mountain Plaza, Woodland Park, NJ 07424, requests to establish
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
butanedioic acid, 2-sulfo-, C-C9-11-isoalkyl esters, C10-rich, disodium
salts (CAS. Reg. No. 815583-91-6), when used as an inert ingredient in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural
commodities under 40 CFR 180.910. The petitioner believes no analytical
method is needed because it is not required for an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.
    4. PP IN-10792. (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0249). Clariant Corporation, 4000
Monroe Road, Charlotte, NC 28205, requests to establish an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance for residues, D-Glucitol, 1-deoxy-
1-(methylamino)-, N-C8-10 acyl derivs. (CAS Reg. No. 1591782-62-5),
when used as an inert ingredient in pesticide formulations applied to
growing crops only under 40 CFR 180.920. The petitioner believes no
analytical method is needed because it is not required for an exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. Contact: RD.

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a.

    Dated: May 8, 2015.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-12238 Filed 5-19-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 25)]
[Notices]
[Page 6237-6239]
[DOCID:fr08fe10-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61458; File No. SR-ISE-2010-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rules
Related to Cutoff Time for Contrary Exercise Advice Submissions

February 1, 2010.
    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 January 11, 2010, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
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 International Securities Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the
``ISE'') proposes to amend Rule 1100 in order to extend the cut-off
time to submit contrary exercise advices. The text of the proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site http://www.ise.com, at
the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, 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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below.

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 1100 to
extend the cut-off time to submit contrary exercise advices (``Contrary
Exercise Advice'', or, ``CEA'') \3\ to the Exchange. The Exchange also
proposes to make certain non-substantive changes to reorganize the text
of Rule 1100 to more clearly present the existing requirements and to
eliminate duplicative language.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Contrary Exercise Advices are also referred to as Expiring
Exercise Declarations (``EED'') in the OCC rules.
    \4\ The Exchange proposes to reorganize the current rule text so
that the requirement that exercise decisions must be made by 5:30
p.m. Eastern Time is specified in paragraph (c), while the
requirements pertaining to submitting CEA instructions are contained
in new paragraph (d). The language in new paragraph (d) is comprised
of language moved from paragraph (b)(2) and paragraph (c) of the
current rule. The Exchange also proposes to eliminate Supplementary
Material .03 to Rule 1100 because it is duplicative of the language
contained in paragraph (c) of the current rule and paragraph
(d)(iii) in the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') has an established
procedure, under OCC Rule 805, that provides for the automatic exercise
of certain options that are in-the-money by a specified amount known as
``Exercise-by-Exception'' or ``Ex-by-Ex.'' Under the Ex-by-Ex process,
options holders holding option contracts that are in-the-money by a
requisite amount and who wish to have their contracts automatically
exercised need take no further action. However, under OCC Rule 805,
option holders who do not want their options automatically exercised or
who want their options to be exercised under different parameters than
that of the Ex-by-Ex procedures must instruct OCC of their ``contrary
intention.''
    In addition to and separately from the OCC requirement, under
Exchange Rule 1100 option holders must file a CEA with the Exchange
notifying it of the contrary intention. Rule 1100 is designed, in part,
to deter individuals from taking improper advantage of late breaking
news by requiring evidence of an option holder's timely decision to
exercise or not exercise expiring equity options. Members satisfy this
evidentiary requirement by submitting a CEA form directly to the
Exchange, or by electronically submitting the CEA to the Exchange
through OCC's electronic communications system. The

submission of the CEA allows the Exchange to satisfy its regulatory
obligation to verify that the decision to make a contrary exercise was
made timely and in accordance with Rule 1100.
    Currently under Rule 1100, option holders have until 5:30 p.m.\5\
on the day prior to expiration to make a final decision to exercise or
not exercise an expiring option that would otherwise either expire or
be automatically exercised. An Exchange member may not accept CEA
instructions from its customer or non customer accounts after 5:30 p.m.
However, the current rule gives Exchange members an additional one
hour, up to 6:30 p.m., to submit these CEA instructions to the Exchange
where such member uses an electronic submission process.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ All referenced times are Eastern Time.
    \6\ If members do not employ an electronic submission procedure,
they are required to submit CEAs for non-customer accounts by the
5:30 p.m. deadline. This deadline for manual submission is required
in order to prevent firms from improperly extending the 5:30 p.m.
deadline to exercise or not exercise an option. This requirement is
based on the difficulty in monitoring a manual procedure that has
different times for deciding whether or not to exercise the option
and for the submission of the CEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This current process allowing members an additional one hour after
the decision making cut off time of 5:30 p.m. to submit a CEA to the
various options exchanges was approved by the Commission in 2003.\7\ In
2003, the Ex-by-Ex thresholds were $0.75 for customers and $0.25 for
broker-dealer accounts. In 2009, the Ex-by-Ex threshold is $0.01 for
all accounts. This decrease in the Ex-by-Ex threshold, coupled with the
dramatic increase in option trading volume from 2003 to 2009, has led
to a larger number of CEA instructions and has increased the burden on
firms to process and submit instructions timely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 47885 (May 16,
2003), 68 FR 28309 (May 23, 2003) (SR-Amex-2001-92); 48505
(September 17, 2003), 68 FR 55680 (September 26, 2003) (SR-ISE-2003-
20); 48640 (October 16, 2003), 68 FR 60757 (October 23, 2003) (SR-
PCX-2003-47); and 48639 (October 16, 2003), 68 FR 60764 (October
23,2003) (SR-Phlx-2003-65).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to extend the current 6:30 p.m. deadline for
submitting CEA instructions to the Exchange by one additional hour, up
to 7:30 p.m. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change is
necessary to address concerns expressed by members that, given the
decrease in the Ex-by-Ex threshold and the increase in trading, the
existing deadline for submitting CEAs to the Exchange is problematic
for timely back-office processing. The proposed additional one hour
will address this concern by further enabling firms to more timely
manage, process, and submit the instructions to the Exchange. The
Exchange also proposes to modify the language in paragraph (g) of the
current rule (new paragraph (h)), which allows a member up to 2 hours
and 30 minutes to submit a CEA to the Exchange in the event of a
modified close of trading on the day of expiration, by removing the two
hour and thirty minute restriction and allowing a member to submit a
CEA to the Exchange in the event of a modified close of trading of up
to the proposed 7:30 p.m. deadline. This will make consistent the
submission deadline for both regular and modified close expiration
days. Moreover, this will provide uniformity with submission deadlines
for both regular and modified close expiration days which will remove
any possibility for error when determining what the submission deadline
is on any modified close expiration day.
    It is important to note that this proposed submission deadline does
not change the substantive requirement that option holders make a final
decision by 5:30 p.m. The Exchange will continue to enforce the 5:30
p.m. decision making requirement, while also allowing additional time
to process and submit the CEA instructions. This proposal seeks to
increase that additional submission time by one hour, and the Exchange
believes that this proposal will be beneficial to the marketplace,
particularly as it concerns back-office processing. The initiative to
address Exchange member concerns is industry-wide, and the Exchange
anticipates that other options exchanges will also propose a one hour
extension for which they will accept a CEA. This additional processing
time and Exchange submission deadline will not conflict with OCC
submission rules or cause any OCC processing issues.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that
it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and to
protect investors and the public interest in that it is designed to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism for a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
This proposed rule change will foster coordination with back office
personnel engaged in processing information and is consistent with the
facilitating of transactions in securities as set forth in Section
6(b)(5) in that it, by providing Exchange members an additional hour
within which to complete the necessary processing of CEAs, will thereby
decrease Exchange members' burden of processing an increasing number of
contrary exercise advices and enable them to more easily manage and
process these instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any written comments from members or other interested parties.

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

    Within 35 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 such proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2010-02 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-ISE-2010-02. 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 inspection and
copying 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 ISE. 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-ISE-2010-02 and should be
submitted on or before March 1, 2010.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2587 Filed 2-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 123 (Thursday, June 25, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38134-38136]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG20-193-000.
    Applicants: Titan Solar 1, LLC.
    Description: Titan Solar 1, LLC Notice of Self-Certification of
Exempt Wholesale Generator Status.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5185.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1633-002.
    Applicants: Deseret Generation and Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to July 26, 2019 Updated Market Power
Analysis of Deseret Generation and Transmission Co-operative, Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5141.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-1939-002.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: FERC Order 845 Amendment to
Compliance Filing to be effective 5/22/2019.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5149.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-159-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Pioneer
Transmission LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing with Opinion No. 569-A of Pioneer
Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5147.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2101-000.
    Applicants: Fern Solar LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
7/15/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5161.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2102-000.
    Applicants: Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule FERC No. 284
between Tri-State and Niobrara to be effective 6/19/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/18/20.
    Accession Number: 20200618-5151.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2103-000.
    Applicants: Turquoise Nevada LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Second Amended and Restated
Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 2/22/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5003.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2104-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-06-18_SA 3037 DTE
Electric-METC 3rd Rev GIA (J589 J794) to be effective 6/5/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5055.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2105-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2020-06-19_Revisions to
Attachments FF-4 to add Republic and GridLiance to be effective 8/24/
2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2106-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement
to be effective 6/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5062.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2107-000.
    Applicants: Burgess Biopower LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Request for Category 1
Seller Status in the Northeast Region to be effective 6/20/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2108-000.
    Applicants: Great Bay Solar II, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Rate Schedule
to be effective 8/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2109-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to ISA, SA No.
5604 and CSA, SA No. 5614; Queue No. AC1-164 (consent) to be effective
2/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2110-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Notice of Termination Avenal
Solar Holdings E&P Agreement (WDT SA 2100 EP-10) to be effective 5/22/
2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5113.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2111-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3203R1 Evergy Missouri West
& City of Osceola, MO Inter Agr to be effective 8/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2112-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3341R1 Evergy Metro/City of
Gardner, KS Interconnection Agr to be effective 8/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5128.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2113-000.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 205 filing re: Operating
Reserves & ESR schedules during reserve pickups to be effective 12/31/
9998.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5148.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-2114-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3051R1 Empire District and
Evergy Kansas South Inter Agr to be effective 8/18/2020.
    Filed Date: 6/19/20.
    Accession Number: 20200619-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/20.

    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: June 19, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-13713 Filed 6-24-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 281]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33314]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, January
7, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:

Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.

    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 31, 2015.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-33314 Filed 12-31-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 36 (Friday, February 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11670-11673]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03575]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80062; File No. SR-MIAX-2017-05]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Clarify Its Fees
Relating to the MIAX Express Network Interconnect (``MENI'')

February 17, 2017.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 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 February 13, 2017, Miami International
Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX Options'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's
principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to provide a
definition of the MIAX Express Network Interconnect (``MENI'') and that
any Member \3\ or non-Member using the MENI to access the Exchange's
System \4\ and the automated trading system of MIAX PEARL, LLC (``MIAX
PEARL''), the Exchange's affiliate (the ``MIAX PEARL System'') will
only be assessed one network connectivity fee per such connection,
regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems,
and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange and MIAX PEARL
accessed via such connection, as more fully described below. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \4\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
    \5\ The Exchange notes that MIAX PEARL has filed with the
Commission a proposed rule change to adopt similar clarifying rules
in connection with the establishment of its proposed fee schedule.
See SR-PEARL-2017-10 filed on February 13, 2017 at
www.miaxoptions.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange provides to Members and non-Members a network
infrastructure pursuant to which such Members and non-Members establish
connectivity to the trading platforms, market data systems, test
systems, and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange. The Exchange
refers to this network infrastructure as the MIAX Express Network
Interconnect, or the MENI. The MENI consists of the low latency and
ultra-low latency (``ULL'') connectivity options set forth in the
Exchange's Fee Schedule. The MENI also provides members and non-members
of MIAX PEARL network connectivity to the trading platforms, market
data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of MIAX
PEARL. Further, for Members and non-Members of the Exchange that wish
to establish connectivity to both the Exchange and MIAX PEARL, the MENI
can be configured to provide such Members and non-Members of the
Exchange network connectivity to the trading platforms, market data
systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of both the
Exchange and MIAX PEARL, via a single, shared connection.
    Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to clarify that, when a
Member or non-Member of the Exchange establishes network connectivity
to the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems, and
disaster recovery facilities of both the Exchange and MIAX PEARL, via a
single, shared connection, for purposes of: (i) Section 4) of the
Exchange's Fee Schedule, the Member or non-Member will only be assessed
one Network Connectivity Testing and Certification Fee per connection
tested, regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems, test
systems, and disaster recovery facilities accessed via such connection,
and (ii) Section 5) of the Exchange's Fee Schedule, the Member or non-
Member will only be assessed one Network Connectivity Fee per
connection, regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems,
test systems, and disaster recovery facilities accessed via such
connection.
    In particular, regarding Network Connectivity Testing and
Certification, new users of the Exchange's System (and existing users
of the System that seek to change connectivity options) require testing
and certification prior to actual use in the production environment,
and are assessed fees for such testing and certification as are
specified in the Exchange's Fee Schedule. Accordingly, the Exchange now
proposes to amend Section 4)c) of the Fee Schedule to provide that
Members utilizing the MENI to connect to the trading platforms, market
data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of the
Exchange and MIAX PEARL via a single, shared connection will only be
assessed one Network Connectivity Testing and Certification Fee per
connection tested, regardless of the trading platforms, market data
systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities accessed via
such connection. Further, the Exchange similarly proposes to amend
Section 4)d) of the Fee Schedule to provide that non-Members utilizing
the MENI to connect to the trading platforms, market data systems, test
systems, and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange and MIAX
PEARL via a single, shared connection will only be assessed one Network
Connectivity Testing and Certification Fee per connection tested,
regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems,
and disaster recovery facilities accessed via such connection.
    Regarding System Network Connectivity Fees, Members and non-Members
of the Exchange are assessed fees for connectivity to the Exchange as
is set forth in the Fee Schedule, depending on the connection size
(e.g., 1 Gigabit, 10 Gigabit, 10 Gigabit ULL) and facility site (e.g.,
primary/secondary facility, disaster recovery facility). Accordingly,
the Exchange now proposes to amend Section 5)a) of the Fee Schedule to
provide that Members utilizing the MENI to connect to the trading
platforms, market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery
facilities of the Exchange and MIAX PEARL via a single, shared
connection will only be assessed one Monthly Member Network
Connectivity Fee per connection, regardless of the trading platforms,
market data systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities
accessed via such connection. Further, the Exchange similarly proposes
to amend Section 5)b) of the Fee Schedule to provide that non-Members
utilizing the MENI to connect to the trading platforms, market data
systems, test systems, and disaster recovery facilities of the Exchange
and MIAX PEARL via a single, shared connection will only be assessed
one Monthly Non-Member Network Connectivity Fee per connection,
regardless of the trading platforms, market data systems, test systems,
and disaster recovery facilities accessed via such connection.
    The proposed rule change is intended to provide greater
transparency to Members and non-Members of the Exchange regarding how
network connectivity testing and certification fees and network
connectivity fees will

be assessed by the Exchange when Members and non-Members establish
network connectivity to the Exchange and MIAX PEARL via a single,
shared network connection by explicitly stating that each such
connection will only be charged once per connection. The Exchange
believes that clarifying regarding how network connectivity testing and
certification fees and network connectivity fees will be assessed by
the Exchange will benefit all market participants by assisting them in
the decision-making process to connect to the Exchange and further
their readiness to use the MIAX PEARL System.

2. Statutory Basis

    The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \6\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) of the Act,\7\ in that it is an
equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among
Exchange Members and other persons using its facilities, and Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4)
of the Act \9\ because it will apply equally to all Exchange
participants who test and/or use a single, shared connection to access
the Exchange and MIAX PEARL. The Exchange believes that assessing all
Exchange participants only one connectivity fee for each single, shared
connection to both the Exchange and MIAX PEARL is reasonable, equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it makes the fees consistent
between the Exchange and MIAX PEARL for use of the MENI to access both
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the
Act,\10\ in that it is designed to protect investors and the public
interest and to promote just and equitable principles of trade by
providing greater transparency to Members and non-Members of the
Exchange regarding how network connectivity testing and certification
fees and network connectivity fees will be assessed by the Exchange
when Members and non-Members establish network connectivity to the
Exchange and MIAX PEARL via a single, shared network connection by
explicitly stating that each such connection will only be charged once
per connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 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
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange
believes that the proposed changes would increase both intermarket and
intramarket competition by defining the assessments of such network
connectivity testing and certification fees and network connectivity
fees for all users of the Exchange, thereby creating greater clarity
around the Exchange's assessment of such fees for participants that
wish to begin using MIAX PEARL's System through its existing MIAX
Options' network connection and to continue using the Exchange's
facilities through the same shared connection, thereby enabling a
potential user of both systems to assess the competitive nature of the
fees. This should benefit all market participants and improve
competition on the Exchange.
    The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market
in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they
deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. In such an
environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges and to attract order flow to the
Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance
competition, because market participants will have more clarity
surrounding how they will be assessed the network connectivity testing
and certification fees and network connectivity fees if they desire to
connect to both the MIAX Options and MIAX PEARL through the MENI and
will also understand that they will not be double charged for these
network fees for using the same, shared connections to both exchanges.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\11\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \12\ thereunder.
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. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \12\ 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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-MIAX-2017-05 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-MIAX-2017-05. 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 No. SR-MIAX-2017-05, and should be submitted on or before March
17, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03575 Filed 2-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4)

Petition #4E8248

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (4E8248) from Interregional
Research Project No. 4 (IR-4), 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08540  requesting, 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 by establishing a tolerance for residues of
S-metolachlor in or on the raw agricultural commodity lettuce at 1.5
parts per million (ppm), cucurbit vegetable crop group 9 at 0.50 ppm,
vegetable, fruiting, group 8-10, except tabasco pepper, low growing
berry subgroup 13-07G excluding cranberry at 0.40 ppm, and sunflower
subgroup 20B at 0.50 ppm and the concurrent deletion of the existing
tolerance for okra.  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. The qualitative nature of S-metolachlor residues
in plants is adequately understood for the purpose of the proposed
tolerances, based upon acceptable corn, potato and soybean metabolism
studies.  The metabolism of S-metolachlor involves conjugation with
glutathione, breakage of this bond to form the mercaptan, conjugation of
the mercaptan with glucuronic acid, hydrolysis of the methyl ether, and
conjugation of the resultant alcohol with a neutral sugar.  EPA has
determined that, for S-metolachlor, residues of concern in plants
include parent and metabolites, determined as the derivatives CGA-37913
and CGA-49751.

	2. Analytical method. Syngenta has developed and validated analytical
methodology for enforcement purposes.  A gas chromatography-nitrogen
phosphorus detection (GC/NPD) method has been submitted to the Agency
for determining residues in/on crop commodities and is published in PAM
Vol. II, Method I.  A gas chromatography-mass selective detection
(GC/MSD) method has been submitted to the Agency for determining
residues in livestock commodities and is published in PAM Vol. II,
Method II.  These methods determine residues of S-metolachlor and its
metabolites as either CGA-37913 or CGA-49751 following acid hydrolysis.
An extensive database of method validation data using these methods on
various crop commodities is available.

	3. Magnitude of residues. Complete residue data to support the
requested tolerances are submitted or referenced with this petition.
The residue studies were conducted per EPA Test Guidelines 860.1000 and
860.1500.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  The database for acute toxicity of S-metolachlor is
considered to be complete.  S-metolachlor is moderately acutely toxic
(toxicity category III) by the oral and dermal routes of exposure and
relatively non-toxic (toxicity category IV) by the inhalation route of
exposure.  It causes slight eye irritation (toxicity category III) and
is non-irritating dermally (toxicity category IV).  The active
ingredient was found to be positive in a dermal sensitization test but
this effect is mitigated in end-use product formulations.

	2. Genotoxicty. Gene mutation (Guideline 870.5100), micronucleus
(Guideline 870.5395) and unscheduled DNA synthesis (Guideline 870.5550)
studies conducted with S-metolachlor have been reviewed and approved by
EPA.  There is no evidence of a mutagenic or cytogenetic effect in vivo
or in vitro with S-metolachlor.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. Prenatal developmental
studies in the rat and rabbit with S-metolachlor revealed no evidence of
a qualitative or quantitative susceptibility in fetal animals.  No
significant developmental toxicity was observed in most studies even at
the highest dose tested.  In a two-generation reproduction study, there
was no evidence of parental or reproductive toxicity at the highest dose
tested (80 mg/kg/day).  The results indicate that S-metolachlor is not
embryotoxic or teratogenic in either species at maternally toxic doses.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. In a 90-day dietary study in rats with
S-metolachlor, no effects were observed in males or females at 209 and
236 mg/kg/day, respectively.  In another 90-day dietary study in rats,
decreased body weight, reduced food consumption and food efficiency in
both sexes and increased kidney weight gain in males was observed at 150
mg/kg/day; the NOAEL was 15 mg/kg/day.  A 90-day dog study with
S-metolachlor has been accepted by EPA; no effects were observed in
males and females at 62 mg/kg/day and 74 mg/kg/day, respectively, which
were the highest doses tested.

	5. Chronic toxicity. Chronic studies in both the rat and dog with
S-metolachlor revealed no significant chronic toxicity.  In the rat, a
decrease in body weight was observed at the highest dose tested.  In the
dog, the only adverse effect was decreased body weight gain in females
at 33 mg/kg/day; the NOAEL was 10 mg/kg/day.

	6. Animal metabolism. Animal metabolism studies have shown that
S-metolachlor is extensively absorbed, rapidly metabolized and almost
totally eliminated following oral administration in rats, goats and
poultry.  S-metolachlor was primarily absorbed from the gastrointestinal
tract and ultimately eliminated in the excreta of the species tested.
Metabolism in animals proceeds through common Phase 1 intermediates and
glutathione conjugation.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. The metabolism of S-metolachlor has been well
characterized in standard FIFRA metabolism studies.  S-metolachlor does
not readily undergo dealkylation to form an aniline or quinone imine as
has been reported for other members of the chloroacetanilide class of
chemicals.  Therefore, as EPA has agreed, it is not appropriate to
include S-metolachlor with the group of chloroacetanilides that readily
undergo dealkylation, producing a common toxic metabolite (quinone
imine).  EPA has reviewed toxicology data submitted by Syngenta
demonstrating that the S-metolachlor metabolites ethane sulfonic acid
(CGA 354743) and oxanilic acid (CGA 51202) are not absorbed by mammalian
systems and/or have a significantly lower level of mammalian toxicity
when compared to parent.

	8. Endocrine disruption. S-metolachlor does not belong to a class of
chemicals known or suspected of having adverse effects on the endocrine
system.  There is no evidence that S-metolachlor has any effect on
endocrine function in developmental or reproduction studies.
Furthermore, histological investigation of endocrine organs in the
chronic dog, rat and mouse studies did not indicate that the endocrine
system is targeted by S-metolachlor, even at maximally tolerated doses
administered for a lifetime.  There is no evidence that S-metolachlor
bioaccumulates in the environment.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Acute (Tier I) and chronic (Tier II) dietary
exposure evaluations were made for S-metolachlor using the Dietary
Exposure Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake
Database (DEEM-FCID™, version 3.15).  DEEM-FCID software incorporates
food consumption data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey “What We Eat in America” (NHANES/WWEIA) dietary survey
conducted in 2003-2008.  These aggregate human health assessments
include all current and pending uses as well as proposed new IR-4 uses
on head lettuce, leaf lettuce, low-growing berries (Subgroup 13-07G),
cucurbits (Crop Group 9), and revised crop groupings for fruiting
vegetables (Group 8-10, except tabasco peppers), and sunflowers
(Subgroup 20B).  The acute exposure assessments were based on
established or proposed tolerances for S-metolachlor.  The chronic
exposure assessments were based on average field trial residues,
established tolerances, or market basket survey data (potato and
tomato).  The percent of crop treated (%CT) was assumed to be 100% for
all commodities.  Secondary residues in animal commodities were
estimated based on “maximum reasonably balanced dietary burdens” and
transfer information from metabolism and feeding studies.

	i. Food. Acute Risk.  The acute dietary risk assessments were performed
for all population subgroups with an acute reference dose of 3.0
mg/kg-bw/day based on an acute no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)
of 300 mg/kg/day prenatal developmental toxicity study in rats and an
uncertainly factor of 100X.  The 100X safety factor includes intra- and
interspecies variations.  No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.
The acute assessments were run using DEEM-FCID™ software using
established tolerances for S-metolachlor and 100% crop treated values.
For the purpose of the aggregate risk assessments, the exposure values
were expressed in terms of margin of exposure (MOE), which was
calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the exposure for each population
subgroup.  In addition, exposures were expressed as a percent of the
acute reference dose (% aRfD).  Acute food exposure to the U.S.
population resulted in a MOE of 60,235 or 0.2% of the aRfD (Benchmark
MOE =100; aRfD = 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day).  Acute food exposure to the most
sensitive subpopulation (children 1 to 2 years old) resulted in a MOE of
26,373 or 0.4% of the aRfD (Benchmark MOE =100; 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day).

Chronic Risk.  The chronic assessments were run using DEEM-FCID™
software using average field trial residue values, USDA-PDP residues,
SMBS data, and 100% crop treated values.  The chronic dietary risk
assessments were performed for all population subgroups with a chronic
reference dose of 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day based on a one-year feeding study in
dogs with a NOAEL of 9.7 mg/kg/day and an uncertainly factor of 100X.
The 100-fold safety factor includes intra- and interspecies variations.
No additional FQPA safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of the
aggregate risk assessments, the exposure values were expressed in terms
of margin of exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL
by the exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposures
were expressed as a percent of the reference dose (% cRfD).  Chronic
food exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 13,860 or 0.7%
of the cRfD (Benchmark MOE = 100; cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic
food exposure to the most exposed sub-population (children, 1-2 years
old) resulted in a MOE of 5,829 or 1.7% of the cRfD (Benchmark MOE =
100; cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).

Cancer.  S-metolachlor has been classified as a Group C, possible human
carcinogen based on the occurrence of liver tumors in rats.  The NOAEL
that was established based on tumors in rats (15 mg/kg/day) is
comparable to the NOAEL of 9.7 mg/kg/day selected for the chronic
reference dose.  Therefore the chronic dietary end point is protective
for cancer dietary exposure.

	ii. Drinking water. [The estimated drinking water concentrations
(EDWCs) for surface water and groundwater were taken from the First
Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST), Pesticide Root Zone
Model/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) and Screening
Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW) models; as well as monitoring
data from two National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) programs.  The
maximum concentration of parent metolachlor / S-metolachlor detected in
a nationwide NAWQA surface water monitoring program (that did not
analyze for the degradates) was used as the peak surface water EDWC for
the acute assessment; the one-in-ten-year maximum annual average
PRZM/EXAMS concentration was used as the chronic surface water EDWC.
For the metolachlor ethanesulfonic acid (ESA) and metolachlor oxanilic
acid (OA) metabolites, the one-in-ten-year maximum FIRST concentrations
were used as peak surface water EDWCs for the acute assessment;
one-in-ten-year annual averages were used as the chronic surface water
EDWCs.  Groundwater EDWCs for parent metolachlor / S-metolachlor and
the ESA metabolite were taken from the nationwide and Iowa / Illinois
NAWQA groundwater monitoring programs; maximum (upper bound) detections
were used for both acute and chronic groundwater EDWCs, since time
weighted means were not available.  For the OA metabolite, the SCI-GROW
concentration was used.

For surface water, the EDWCs of parent metolachlor / S-metolachlor and
its degradates were estimated to be 218.78 ppb (parent: 77.60 ppb, ESA:
47.61 ppb, and OA: 93.57 ppb) for acute exposure and 118.81 ppb (parent:
18.15 ppb, ESA: 34.04 ppb, and OA: 66.62 ppb) for chronic exposure.
For ground water the EDWCs of parent metolachlor / S-metolachlor and its
degradates were estimated to be 126.2 ppb (parent: 32.8 ppb, ESA: 63.7
ppb, and OA: 29.7 ppb) for both acute and chronic exposure.

Acute Exposure from Drinking Water.  The acute EDWC of 218.78 ppb for
surface water was used in the DEEM-FCID™ software as “water, direct
and indirect, all sources” to model the acute drinking water
exposures.  The acute drinking water exposure contributions at the
95%-ile of exposures were determined by taking the difference between
the aggregate (food + drinking water) exposures and the food exposures
for each population subgroup.  Acute drinking water exposure to the
U.S. population resulted in an MOE of 29,101 or 0.3% of the aRfD
(Benchmark MOE = 100; aRfD = 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day).  Acute drinking water
exposure to the most exposed sub-population (infants, <1 year old)
resulted in an MOE of 9,465 or 1.1% of the aRfD (Benchmark MOE = 100;
aRfD = 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day).

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water.  The predicted chronic ground
water value of 126.2 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID™
software as water, direct and indirect, all sources to model the chronic
drinking water exposure.  Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S.
population resulted in an MOE of 3,677 or 2.6% of the cRfD (Benchmark
MOE = 100; cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day).  Chronic drinking water exposure
to the most exposed subpopulation (infants, <1 year old) resulted in an
MOE of 1,426 or 6.8% of the cRfD (Benchmark MOE = 100; cRfD = 0.1
mg/kg-bw/day).

	2. Non-dietary exposure. There is a potential for post-application
exposure to adults and children resulting from professionally-applied
treatments of S-metolachlor on residential lawns.  Post-application
exposure is considered to be short-term based on label directions
limiting application to one time per season.  Since toxicity was not
observed in a dermal toxicity study, up to a dose level of 1,000
mg/kg/day, the only parameter of short-term residential risk that needs
to be addressed is the possible oral exposure of toddlers and children
from treated turf or soil.  Using these exposure assumptions, the
short-term residential exposures from metolachlor/S-metolachlor resulted
in an aggregate MOE of 1,314 for children, 1-2 years.  Note that there
are no non-dietary contributions to the aggregate MOE for adults or
infants (<1 year) from turf uses since none of the oral exposure
scenarios (hand-to-mouth, object-to-mouth, soil ingestion) would be
applicable to these subpopulations.

D. Cumulative Effects

	Cumulative Exposure to Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) 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”.  The EPA has examined the common
mechanism potential for S-metolachlor and has concluded that
S-metolachlor should not be included with the chloroacetanilide
pesticides designated as a “Common Mechanism Group.”  The Agency’s
position is that only some chloroacetanilides, namely acetochlor,
alachlor and butachlor should be considered as a “Common Mechanism
Group” due to their ability to cause nasal turbinate tumors.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Using the conservative assumptions described above,
and based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data, the
acute aggregate exposure calculation for all current, pending, and
proposed uses of S-metolachlor provided an MOE of 19,621 or 0.5% of the
aRfD (Benchmark MOE = 100; aRfD = 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day) for the U.S.
population.  The chronic aggregate exposure calculation for all current,
pending, and proposed uses of S-metolachlor provided an MOE of 2,906 or
3.3% of the cRfD (Benchmark MOE = 100; cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day) for the
U.S. population.

	2. Infants and children. Using the conservative assumptions described
in the exposure section above, and based on the completeness and
reliability of the toxicity data, the acute aggregate exposure
calculation for all current, pending, and proposed uses of S-metolachlor
provided an MOE of 7,357 or 1.4% of the aRfD (Benchmark MOE = 100; aRfD
= 3.0 mg/kg-bw/day) for infants < 1 year old (the most sensitive
subpopulation for the acute assessment).  The short-term aggregate
assessment resulted in an MOE of 1,149 for the children (1-2 years old)
population subgroup (Benchmark MOE = 100).  The chronic aggregate
exposure calculation for all current, pending, and proposed uses of
S-metolachlor provided an MOE of 1,220 or 7.9% of the cRfD (Benchmark
MOE = 100; cRfD = 0.1 mg/kg-bw/day) for infants <1 year old (the most
sensitive subpopulation for the chronic assessment).

F. International Tolerances

	There are currently no Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) set for
S-metolachlor for crops by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
International MRLs for the herbicide S-metolachlor have been established
for various agricultural commodities in a number of countries including
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Czech
Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Italy,
Japan, Korea (South), Luxembourg, Malaysia, Moldova, Morocco,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Ukraine.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 3359]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01221]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4353-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

California; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4353-DR), dated January 2,
2018, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued January 2, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated January 2, 2018, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of California resulting from wildfires beginning on December 4,
2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of California.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, William Roche, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of California have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of California are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-01221 Filed 1-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P