UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Emissions Modeling Data Files for Final 2017-2025 Light Duty
Vehicle GHG Rule

FROM:	Margaret Zawacki

		Assessment and Standards Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality

		Rich Mason

		Emissions Inventory and Analysis Group, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards

TO:		Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799-DRAFT-XXXXX

DATE:		August 6, 2012

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit emissions modeling data
files which were used to prepare air quality modeling inventories for
the final 2017-2025 light duty vehicle greenhouse gas rule.  The
emissions modeling analyses are discussed in the Emissions Inventory for
Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document: 2017-2025 Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Final Rule.  The air quality modeling analysis
results are able to be replicated by using the data files provided here
and the information in the Air Quality Modeling Technical Support
Document: 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards
Final Rule.  Following is a brief description of the information
contained on the enclosed DVD.

The files contain county level delimited summaries for criteria
pollutants and select hazardous air pollutants (e.g. benzene,
acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, ethanol,
naphthalene) by emissions modeling sector for the scenarios listed
below.  Summaries are included by month using average day emissions and
separately with annual totals.

1) 2005 base

2) 2030 Reference

3) 2030 Control

The files contained on the enclosed disc are
“ldghg_database_description final.docx” and “LD GHG
county-sector-month reports with ctl2 02jul2012.accdb”.

Attachments


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 63830]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22737]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96077; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-043]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Amend Exchange Rule 14.11(d) To Accommodate Exchange Listing
and Trading of Options-Linked Securities

October 14, 2022.
    On August 18, 2022, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to FR
19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend BZX Rule 14.11(d)
to accommodate the listing and trading of Options-Linked Securities.
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on September 8, 2022.\3\ The Commission has received no
comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 95655 (Sept. 1,
2022), 87 FR 55068.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may
designate if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and
publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-
regulatory organization consents, the Commission shall either approve
the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule change, or
institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change
should be disapproved. The 45th day after publication of the notice for
this proposed rule change is October 23, 2022. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer
period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that
it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change and the
issues raised therein. Accordingly, pursuant to FR 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ the Commission designates December 7, 2022, as the date by
which the Commission shall either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-CboeBZX-2022-043).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-22737 Filed 10-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 41 (Friday, March 1, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7146-7151]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03706]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-85201; File No. SR-BOX-2019-04]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market
LLC (``BOX'') Options Facility To Establish BOX Connectivity Fees for
Participants and Non-Participants Who Connect to the BOX Network;
Suspension of and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To
Approve or Disapprove the Proposed Rule Change

February 26, 2019.
    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 February 13, 2019, BOX Exchange LLC (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the

Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is,
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, hereby: (i) Temporarily
suspending the proposed rule change; and (ii) instituting proceedings
to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the Fee Schedule to
establish BOX Connectivity Fees for Participants and non-Participants
who connect to the BOX network. The text of the proposed rule change is
available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the
Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet
website at http://boxexchange.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Description of 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 Section VI. (Technology Fees) of the
BOX Fee Schedule to establish BOX Connectivity Fees for Participants
and non-Participants who connect to the BOX network. Connectivity fees
will be based upon the amount of bandwidth that will be used by the
Participant or non-Participant. Further, BOX Participants or non-
Participants connected as of the last trading day of each calendar
month will be charged the applicable Connectivity Fee for that month.
The Connectivity Fees will be as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Connection type                       Monthly fees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-10 Gb Connection......................  $1,000 per connection.
10 Gb Connection..........................  $5,000 per connection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to amend certain language and numbering
in Section VI.A to reflect the changes discussed above. Specifically,
BOX proposes to add the title ``Third Party Connectivity Fees'' under
Section VI.A. Further, the Exchange proposes to add Section VI.A.2,
which details the proposed BOX Connectivity Fees discussed above.
    Participants and non-Participants with ten (10) Gigabit (``Gb'')
connections will be charged a monthly fee of $5,000 per connection.
Participants and non-Participants with non-10 Gb connections will be
charged a monthly fee of $1,000 per connection. The Exchange notes that
another exchange in the industry has similar connectivity fees \5\ and
that several other exchanges charge higher connectivity fees.\6\ The
Exchange also notes that certain fees will continue to be assessed by
the datacenters and will be billed directly to the market participant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX'')
Fee Schedule. MIAX charges its Members and non-Members a monthly fee
of $1,100 for each 1 Gigabit connection and $5,500 for each 10
Gigabit connection to MIAX's Primary/Secondary Facility. The
Exchange notes a minor difference between MIAX's connectivity fees
and BOX's proposal. MIAX prorates their connectivity fees when a
Member makes a change to their connectivity (by adding or deleting
connections). BOX notes that, like the Exchange's Port Fees and HSVF
Fees, Participants or non-Participants connected as of the last
trading day of each calendar month will be charged the applicable
Connectivity Fee for that month.
    \6\ See infra note 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Next, the Exchange is amending Section VI.C. High Speed Vendor Feed
(``HSVF'') of the Fee Schedule. Specifically, BOX is proposing to
delete Section VI.C. and reclassify the HSVF Connection as a Port Fee.
The Exchange believes this reclassification is more accurate, as HSVF
subscription is not dependent on a physical connection to the Exchange.
Instead, subscribers must be credentialed by BOX to receive the HSVF.
The HSVF Fee will remain unchanged; BOX will assess a HSVF Port Fee of
$1,500 per month \7\ for each month a Participant or non-Participant is
credentialed to use the HSVF Port. The Exchange notes that another
exchange has a similar classification and charges similar fees.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Exchange notes that with the proposed change discussed
herein, Participants and non-Participants credentialed to use the
HSVF Port who also have physical connections to the BOX system will
be charged for both the HSVF monthly fee and the applicable amount
for their physical connections to BOX. For example, if non-
Participant X is credentialed to use the HSVF Port and has three (3)
physical non-10Gb connections to BOX, non-Participant X will be
charged $1500 for the monthly HSVF Port Fee and $3000 for the three
non-10Gb physical connections to BOX.
    \8\ See Cboe Data Services, LLC. (``Cboe CDS'') Fee Schedule.
Cboe CDS charges its Customers that receive data through a direct
connection to CDS or through a connection to CDS provided by an
extranet provider $500 per port per month. Cboe CDS's port fee
applies to receipt of any Cboe Options data feed but is only
assessed once per data port. In addition to the data port fee, Cboe
Exchange Inc. (``Cboe'') charges connectivity fees based on the
bandwidth used to connect to the Exchange to receive such data. See
Cboe Fee Schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange initially filed the proposed fees on July 19, 2018,
designating the proposed fees effective July 1, 2018 [sic]. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on August 2, 2018.\9\ The Commission received one comment letter on the
proposal.\10\ The proposed fees remained in effect until they were
temporarily suspended pursuant to a suspension order (the ``Suspension
Order'') issued by the Division of Trading and Markets, which also
instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove
the proposed rule change.\11\ The Commission subsequently received one
further comment letter on the proposed rule change, supporting the
decision to suspend and institute proceedings on the proposed fee
change.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83728 (July 27,
2018), 83 FR 37853 (August 2, 2018) (SR-BOX-2018-24).
    \10\ See Letter from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The
Healthy Markets Association, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary,
Commission, dated August 23, 2018 (``Healthy Markets Letter'').
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-84168 (September
17, 2018).
    \12\ See Letter from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, and Ellen Greene, Managing Director,
Financial Services Operations, Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association, dated October 15, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Suspension Order, the Exchange timely filed a
Notice of Intention to Petition for Review \13\ and Petition for Review
to vacate the Division's Order,\14\ which stayed the Division's
suspension of the filing. On November 16, 2018 the Commission granted
the Exchange's Petition for Review but discontinued the automatic
stay.\15\ The Exchange then filed a

statement to reiterate the arguments set for in its petition for review
and to supplement that petition with additional information.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Letter from Amir Tayrani, Partner, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, dated September 19, 2018.
    \14\ See Petition for Review of Order Temporarily Suspending BOX
Exchange LLC's Proposal to Amend the Fee Schedule on BOX Market LLC,
dated September 26, 2018.
    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84614. Order
Granting Petition for Review and Scheduling Filing of Statements,
dated November 16, 2018. Separately, the Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association filed an application under Section
19(d) of the Exchange Act challenging the Exchange's proposed fees
as alleged prohibitions or limitations on access. See In re
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Admin. Proc.
File No. 3-18680 (Aug. 24, 2018). The Commission thereafter remanded
that denial-of-access proceeding to the Exchange while
``express[ing] no view regarding the merits'' and emphasizing that
it was ``not set[ting] aside the challenged rule change [ ].'' In re
Applications of SIFMA & Bloomberg, Exchange Act Rel. No. 84433, at 2
(Oct. 16, 2018) (``Remand Order''), available at https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2018/34-84433.pdf. The Division's
Suspension Order is inconsistent with the Commission's intent in the
Remand Order to leave the challenged fees in place during the
pendency of the remand proceedings and singles out the Exchange for
disparate treatment because it means that the Exchange--unlike every
other exchange whose rule changes were the subject of the Remand
Order--is not permitted to continue charging the challenged fees
during the remand proceedings.
    \16\ See Letter from Amir Tayrani, Partner, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, dated December 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange subsequently refiled its fee proposal on November
30th, 2018. The proposed fees were noticed and again temporarily
suspended pursuant to a suspension order issued by the Division of
Trading and Markets, which also instituted proceedings to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\17\ The
Commission received two comment letters supporting the decision to
suspend and institute proceedings on the proposed fee change.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84823 (December 14,
2018), 83 FR 65381 (December 20, 2018) (SR-BOX-2018-37).
    \18\ See Letters from Tyler Gellasch, Executive Director, The
Healthy Markets Association (``Second Healthy Markets Letter''), and
Chester Spatt, Pamela R. and Kenneth B. Dunn Professor of Finance,
Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University (``Chester
Spatt Letter''), to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
January 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIFMA, Healthy Markets and Chester Spatt Comment Letters
(collectively, the ``Comment Letters'') argued that the Exchange did
not provide sufficient information in its filing to support a finding
that the proposal is consistent with the Act. Specifically, the Comment
Letters objected to the Exchange's reliance on the fees of other
exchanges to demonstrate that its fee increases are consistent with the
Act. In addition, the Comment Letters argued that the Exchange did not
offer any details to support its basis for asserting that the proposed
fees are consistent with the Act.
    The Exchange is once again re-filing the proposed fees. The
proposed rule change is immediately effective upon filing with the
Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
    The Exchange has always offered various bandwidth choices for
physical connectivity to the Exchange for Participants and non-
Participants to access the Exchange's trading platforms, market data,
test systems and disaster recovery facilities. These physical
connections consist of 10Gb and non-10Gb connections, where the 10Gb
connection provides for faster processing of messages sent to it in
comparison to the non-10Gb connection. While the Exchange has not
charged for physical connectivity before, the Exchange believes that it
is reasonable and appropriate to begin charging for this physical
connectivity to partially offset the costs associated with maintaining
and enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the
US options industry. Additionally, there are significant costs
associated with various projects and initiatives to improve overall
network performance and stability, as well as costs paid to the third-
party data centers for space rental, power used, etc. The Exchange
notes that unlike other options exchanges, the Exchange does not own
and operate its own data center and therefore cannot control data
center costs.
    The Exchange also notes that all other options exchanges charge for
similar physical connectivity,\19\ and by suspending the Exchange's
initial fee filing the Division has placed the Exchange at a
competitive disadvantage within the US options industry. Without these
fees to partially offset the costs associated with maintaining and
enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network infrastructure in the US
options industry, the Exchange may not be able to make the planned
enhancements to its infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In addition to the MIAX connectivity fees cited above,
Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx''), The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC
(``Nasdaq''), NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Arca''), NYSE American LLC (``NYSE
American''), Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE''), Cboe Exchange, Inc.
(``Cboe''), Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``CboeBZX''), Cboe EDGX
Exchange, Inc. (``CboeEDGX'') and Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (``C2'')
all offer a type of 10Gb and non-10Gb connectivity alternative to
their participants. See Phlx, and ISE Rules, General Equity and
Options Rules, General 8, Section 1(b). Phlx and ISE each charge a
monthly fee of $2,500 for each 1Gb connection, $10,000 for each 10Gb
connection and $15,000 for each 10Gb Ultra connection, which is the
equivalent of the Exchange's 10Gb ULL connection. See also Nasdaq
Price List--Trading Connectivity. Nasdaq charges a monthly fee of
$7,500 for each 10Gb direct connection to Nasdaq and $2,500 for each
direct connection that supports up to 1Gb. See also NYSE American
Fee Schedule, Section V.B, and Arca Fees and Charges, Co-Location
Fees. NYSE American and Arca each charge a monthly fee of $5,000 for
each 1Gb circuit, $14,000 for each 10Gb circuit and $22,000 for each
10Gb LX circuit, which is the equivalent of the Exchange's 10Gb ULL
connection. See also Cboe, CboeBZX, CboeEDGX and C2 Fee Schedules.
Cboe charges monthly quoting and order entry bandwidth packet fees.
Specifically, Cboe charges $1,600 for the 1st through 5th packet,
$800 for the 6th through 8th packet, $400 for the 9th through 13th
packet and $200 for the 14th packet and each additional packet.
CboeBZX, CboeEDGX and C2 each charge a monthly fee of $2,500 for
each 1Gb connection and $7,500 for each 10Gb connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed Connectivity Fees in
general constitute an equitable allocation of fees, and are not
unfairly discriminatory, because they allow the Exchange to recover
costs associated with offering access through the network connections.
The proposed Connectivity Fees are also expected to offset the costs
both the Exchange and BOX incur in maintaining and implementing ongoing
improvements to the trading systems, including connectivity costs,
costs incurred on software and hardware enhancements and resources
dedicated to software development, quality assurance, and technology
support. The Exchange believes that its proposed fees are reasonable in
that they are comparable to those charged by another exchange and lower
than those charged by several other exchanges. Further, the Exchange
believes that the proposed Connectivity Fees are not unfairly
discriminatory as they are assessed to all market participants who wish
to connect to the BOX network.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed HSVF Port Fee is reasonable
as it is similar to fees assessed at another exchange in the
industry.\21\ Further, the Exchange believes that charging Participants
and non-Participants for both the HSVF monthly fee and applicable
physical connection fees as outlined in the example above is reasonable
as it is in line with another exchange in the industry.\22\ Further,
the Exchange believes that the proposed change is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because it allows the Exchange to recoup
ongoing expenditures made by the Exchange in

order to offer such services to Participants and non-Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See supra note 8.
    \22\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Unilateral action by the
Exchange in establishing fees for services provided to its Participants
and others using its facilities will not have an impact on competition.
As a small exchange in the already highly competitive environment for
options trading, the Exchange does not have the market power necessary
to set prices for services that are unreasonable or unfairly
discriminatory in violation of the Exchange Act. The Exchange's
proposed fees, as described herein, are comparable to and generally
lower than fees charged by other options exchanges for the same or
similar services. Lastly, the Exchange believes the proposed change
will not impose a burden on intramarket competition as the proposed
fees are applicable to all Participants and others using its facilities
that connect to BOX.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Suspension of the Proposed Rule Change

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,\23\ at any time within
60 days of the date of filing of a proposed rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Act,\24\ the Commission summarily may
temporarily suspend the change in the rules of a self-regulatory
organization (``SRO'') 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.
As discussed below, the Commission believes a temporary suspension of
the proposed rule change is necessary and appropriate to allow for
additional analysis of the proposed rule change's consistency with the
Act and the rules thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \24\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Identical fee changes to those proposed herein were originally
filed on July 19, 2018. That proposal, BOX-2018-24, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on August 2, 2018.\25\ The Commission
received one comment letter on that proposal.\26\ On September 17,
2018, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission: (1)
Temporarily suspended the proposed rule change; and (2) instituted
proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the
proposal.\27\ The Commission received one additional comment letter on
that proposal in response to the Order Instituting Proceedings.\28\ On
September 19, 2018, pursuant to Rule 430 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice,\29\ the Exchange filed a notice of intention to petition for
review of the Order Instituting Proceedings and, on September 26, 2018,
the Exchange filed a petition for review of the Order Instituting
Proceedings.\30\ On November 16, 2018, the Commission granted the
Exchange's Petition and discontinued the automatic stay of delegated
action.\31\ In addition, the Commission ordered that any party or other
person could file a statement in support or in opposition to the action
made by delegated authority provided such statement was filed on or
before December 10, 2018.\32\ The Commission received two such
statements from the Exchange.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See supra note 9, and accompanying text.
    \26\ See supra note 10.
    \27\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84168 (September
17, 2018), 83 FR 47947 (September 21, 2018) (``Order Instituting
Proceedings'').
    \28\ See supra note 12.
    \29\ 17 CFR 201.430.
    \30\ See supra notes 13-14, and accompanying text. Pursuant to
Rule 431(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, a notice of
intention to petition for review results in an automatic stay of the
action by delegated authority. 17 CFR 201.431(e).
    \31\ See supra note 15, and accompanying text.
    \32\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84614 (November 16,
2018), 83 FR 59432 (November 23, 2018).
    \33\ See letters to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, from
Lisa J. Fall, President, BOX, dated December 7, 2018, and Amir C.
Tayrani, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, dated December 10, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Identical fee changes to those proposed herein were again filed on
November 30, 2018. That proposal, BOX-2018-37, was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 20, 2018.\34\ Simultaneous
with the publication of such notice, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of
the Act, the Commission: (1) Temporarily suspended the proposed rule
change; and (2) instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposal.\35\ The Commission received two comment
letters in response to the proposal.\36\ The instant filing proposes
identical fees and raises similar concerns as to whether they are
consistent with the Act.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84823 (December 14,
2018), 83 FR 65381.
    \35\ See id.
    \36\ See supra note 18.
    \37\ See Order Instituting Proceedings, supra note 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the
Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal,
they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's
basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable
to the exchange.\38\ The instructions to Form 19b-4, on which exchanges
file their proposed rule changes, specify that such statement ``should
be sufficiently detailed and specific to support a finding that the
proposed rule change is consistent with [those] requirements.'' \39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 17 CFR 240.19b-4 (Item 3 entitled ``Self-Regulatory
Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for,
the Proposed Rule Change'').
    \39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other things, exchange proposed rule changes are subject to
Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), which
requires the rules of an exchange to (1) provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons
using the exchange's facilities; \40\ (2) perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, protect investors
and the public interest, and not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers; \41\
and (3) not impose any burden on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \41\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee change, the Commission
intends to further consider whether the proposed fees to connect to the
Exchange are consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a
national securities exchange under the Act. In particular, the
Commission will consider whether the proposed rule change satisfies the
standards under the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other
things, that an exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation
of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its
facilities; not permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers; and do not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of the Act.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8), respectively.

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

    Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the
public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the
proposed rule change.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ For purposes of temporarily suspending the proposed rule
change, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Sections
19(b)(3)(C) \45\ and 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \46\ to determine whether
the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved. Institution
of proceedings does not indicate that the Commission has reached any
conclusions with respect to any of the issues involved. Rather, the
Commission seeks and encourages interested persons to provide
additional comment on the proposed rule change to inform the
Commission's analysis of whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C). Once the Commission temporarily
suspends a proposed rule change, Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act
requires that the Commission institute proceedings under Section
19(b)(2)(B) to determine whether a proposed rule change should be
approved or disapproved.
    \46\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,\47\ the Commission is
providing notice of the grounds for possible disapproval under
consideration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,'' \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other
things, that the rules of a national securities exchange be designed to
``perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system'' and ``protect investors and the public interest,'' and not be
``designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers,'' \49\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules
of a national securities exchange ``not impose any burden on
competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes
of [the Act].'' \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the proposal imposes new fees for physical
connections to the Exchange. The Exchange states that these fees would
partially offset costs associated with maintaining and enhancing this
technology.\51\ In the instant filing the Exchange states that its
associated costs relate to costs paid to the Exchange's third-party
data center and costs associated with projects and initiatives designed
to improve overall network performance and stability.\52\ The Exchange
also states that these fees are expected to offset costs of maintaining
and implementing ongoing improvements to BOX's trading systems,
including connectivity costs, costs incurred on software and hardware
enhancements, and resources dedicated to software development, quality
assurance, and technology support.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See supra Section II.A.1.
    \52\ See id.
    \53\ See supra Section II.A.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the ``burden to
demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act]
and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO]
that proposed the rule change.'' \54\ The description of a proposed
rule change, its purpose and operation, its effect, and a legal
analysis of its consistency with applicable requirements must all be
sufficiently detailed and specific to support an affirmative Commission
finding,\55\ and any failure of an SRO to provide this information may
result in the Commission not having a sufficient basis to make an
affirmative finding that a proposed rule change is consistent with the
Act and the applicable rules and regulations.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Rule 700(b)(3), Commission Rules of Practice, 17 CFR
201.700(b)(3).
    \55\ See id.
    \56\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional
consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to
whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and
specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable
and equitably allocated; be designed to perfect the mechanism of a free
and open market and the national market system, protect investors and
the public interest, and not be unfairly discriminatory; or not impose
an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4), (5), and (8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Commission's Solicitation of Comments

    The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with
respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant
concerns. Such comments should be submitted by March 11, 2019. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by March 18, 2019. Although there do not
appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval which would
be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments,
the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for
an opportunity to make an oral presentation.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). Section 19(b)(2) of the Act grants the
Commission flexibility to determine what type of proceeding--either
oral or notice and opportunity for written comments--is appropriate
for consideration of a particular proposal by an SRO. See Securities
Acts Amendments of 1975, Report of the Senate Committee on Banking,
Housing and Urban Affairs to Accompany S. 249, S. Rep. No. 75, 94th
Cong., 1st Sess. 30 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and
merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in
addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the
proposed rule change. Interested persons are invited to submit written
data, views, and arguments concerning the proposed rule change,
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-BOX-2019-04 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2019-04. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be

available for website viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do
not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BOX-
2019-04 and should be submitted on or before March 11, 2019. Rebuttal
comments should be submitted by March 18, 2019.

VI. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\59\ that File Number SR-BOX-2019-04 be and hereby is, temporarily
suspended. In addition, the Commission is instituting proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12), (57), and (58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03706 Filed 2-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57289-57292]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22603]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0441; FRL-9396-7]

Difenzoquat; Denial of Objections

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Order.

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

SUMMARY: In this Denial of Objections Order, EPA is denying the
objections submitted by Amvac Chemical Corporation (AMVAC) to a
Revocation Order EPA issued in May 2013 under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) revoking all tolerances for the pesticide
difenzoquat. EPA revoked the tolerances, consistent with the terms of a
previously issued Data Call-In Order, because no notices of intent to
submit the required data were submitted, as directed by that Data Call-
In Order. In its objections, AMVAC requested that EPA delay the
effective date for revoking the difenzoquat tolerances for 4\1/2\ years
to allow for importation of food commodities that will be treated with
the pesticide in Canada over the next 2 years. EPA denies AMVAC's
objections because AMVAC has not filed a proper objection to the
Revocation Order.

DATES: This order is effective September 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0441, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Nevola, Pesticide Re-Evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. 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).

II. Introduction

A. What action is the agency taking?

    In this Denial of Objections Order, EPA is denying the objections
submitted by AMVAC to a Revocation Order issued by EPA in the Federal
Register of May 29, 2013 (Ref. 1), in which EPA ordered the revocation
of all tolerances for the pesticide difenzoquat under FFDCA section
408, 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA revoked the tolerances, consistent with the
terms of a previously issued Data Call-In Order (Ref. 2), because no
notices of intent to submit the required data were received by EPA as
directed by that Data Call-In Order. In its objections (Ref. 3), AMVAC
requested that EPA delay the effective date for the revocation of the
difenzoquat tolerances for 4\1/2\ years to allow for importation of
food commodities that will be treated with the pesticide in Canada over
the next 2 years. EPA denies AMVAC's objections because AMVAC has not
filed a proper objection to the Revocation Order. The AMVAC objections
are discussed in Unit IV., and EPA's denial is discussed in Unit V.

B. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    The procedure for filing objections to tolerance actions and EPA's
authority for acting on such objections is contained in FFDCA section
408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), and 40 CFR part 178. For orders issued under
FFDCA section 408(f)(2), the only material issue for consideration is
whether a submission required under a FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C) order
was made by the time specified in that FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C)
order. 21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(2).

III. Background

A. Statutory Background

    1. In general. EPA regulates the use of pesticides under the
authority of two Federal statutes: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136-136y, and FFDCA, 21 U.S.C.
346a. FIFRA provides the basis for the regulation, sale, distribution,
and use of pesticides in the United States, and authorizes EPA to
review and register pesticides for specified uses. EPA also has the
authority to suspend or cancel the registration of a pesticide if
subsequent information shows that continued use would pose unreasonable
risks. EPA establishes maximum residue limits, or ``tolerances,'' for
pesticide residues in food under FFDCA section 408. Without such a
tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance, a food
containing a pesticide residue is ``adulterated'' under FFDCA section
402 and may not be legally moved in interstate commerce. 21 U.S.C. 331
and 342. Monitoring and enforcement of pesticide tolerances are carried
out by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
    2. Safety standard for pesticide tolerances. A pesticide tolerance
may only be promulgated by EPA if the tolerance is ``safe.'' 21 U.S.C.
346a(b)(2)(A)(i). ``Safe'' is defined by the statute to mean that
``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all
anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there
is reliable information.'' 21 U.S.C. 346a(b)(2)(A)(ii). Section 408 of
FFDCA directs EPA, in making a safety determination, to ``consider,
among other relevant factors . . . available information concerning the
aggregate exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable
subgroups of consumers) to the pesticide chemical residue and to other
related substances, including dietary exposure under the tolerance and
all other tolerances in effect for the pesticide chemical residue, and
exposure from other non-occupational sources.'' 21 U.S.C.
346a(b)(2)(D)(vi).
    3. Data required for supporting tolerances. In determining whether
to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, EPA considers data to
evaluate whether that tolerance meets the FFDCA safety standard.
Generally, these data are provided in support of an application for
registration of a pesticide under FIFRA, and a petition to establish a
pesticide tolerance under FFDCA. If additional data are needed for an
existing tolerance, EPA's first recourse is to use the broad data call-
in authority in FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(B). In
some situations where there is no domestic pesticide registration and
data cannot be obtained under the data call-in authority of FIFRA
section 3(c)(2)(B), or section 4 of the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2603, FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C) authorizes EPA to
require, by order, submission of data ``reasonably required to support
the continuation of a tolerance. . . .'' 21 U.S.C. 346a(f).
    Under FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C), EPA can issue a data call-in
order following notice and a comment period of not less than 60 days.
21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(1)(C). After the comment period closes, the Agency
will respond to comments, if appropriate, and may issue a final order
requiring the data necessary to support the continuation of a
tolerance. Section 408(f)(1)(C) of FFDCA requires that a data call-in
order contain the following elements:
    i. A requirement that one or more persons submit to EPA a notice
identifying the person(s) who commit to submit the data required in the
order and the date by which such notice(s) must be submitted.
    ii. A description of the data necessary to support the tolerance,
reports connected to such data, a requirement to submit such data and
reports, and the date(s) by which such data and reports must be
submitted.
    iii. An explanation of why the required data could not be obtained
under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) or TSCA section 4.
    If EPA issues a FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C) data call-in order and
any submission required by that order is not made by the time specified
in that order, EPA may revoke, by order published in the Federal
Register, the tolerance that is the subject of that data call-in order.
21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(2). Such revocation order is subject to the objection
and hearing procedure in FFDCA section 408(g)(2), but the only material
issue in such a procedure is whether a submission required by the order
was made in a timely fashion.
    4. Procedures for objections. Upon issuing an order under FFDCA
section 408(f)(2), any affected party has 60 days to file objections
with EPA and seek an evidentiary hearing on those objections. 21 U.S.C.
346a(g)(2). For FFDCA section 408(f)(2) orders, the only material issue
for review of such order is whether a submission required by the order
was made by the time specified in the FFDCA section 408(f)(1)(C) order.
    5. Channels of trade provision for revoked tolerances. The FFDCA
specifically addresses the legality of pesticide residues entering or
remaining in the channels of trade following revocation of the
associated tolerance. 21 U.S.C. 346a(l)(5). Under FFDCA section
408(l)(5), any residues of the pesticide in or on such food does not
render the food adulterated so long as it is shown to the satisfaction
of FDA that:
    i. The residue is present as the result of an application or use of
the pesticide at a time and in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA.
    ii. The residue does not exceed the level that was authorized at
the time of the application or use to be present on the food under a
tolerance or exemption from tolerance. Evidence to show that food was
lawfully treated may include records that verify the dates that the
pesticide was applied to such food.

B. Regulatory Background

    1. Difenzoquat tolerances. Difenzoquat is a herbicide that was
previously registered under FIFRA for sale and distribution in the
United States. The last FIFRA registration was canceled in 2010,
although tolerances remained for this pesticide on the following
commodities: Barley, cattle, goat, hog, horse, poultry, sheep, and
wheat (40 CFR 180.369). In August 2011, in response to AMVAC's interest
in maintaining the difenzoquat tolerances for import purposes, the
Agency completed a screening-level evaluation for difenzoquat
(Screening-Level Memorandum) (Ref. 4). As there are no domestic
registrations for difenzoquat products, the evaluation was limited to
the potential dietary risk from exposure to difenzoquat residues in
imported food commodities. The evaluation concluded that, in order to
determine whether it was appropriate to continue the tolerances,
additional data--a neurotoxicity battery; an immunotoxicity study; and
residue data for barley hay, wheat forage, and wheat hay--were needed
to conduct a new dietary risk assessment on exposure from imported food
commodities. The neurotoxicity battery and immunotoxicity study were
required in accordance with the data requirements rule, which was
updated in 2007 to add these tests (Ref. 5). In addition, EPA required,
consistent with its guidance on applying U.S. data requirements to
import tolerances (Ref. 6), that field trial data on crops mentioned in
this unit be conducted at the maximum application rates and in the
countries where the pesticide would be used so that EPA could evaluate
what level of residues

may be present on imported treated food commodities (Ref. 4, p. 6).
    2. EPA's FFDCA section 408(f) Data Call-In Order. On July 6, 2012,
EPA issued in the Federal Register a proposed Data Call-In Order under
FFDCA section 408(f)(1), 21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(1), proposing to require the
submission of data for the pesticide difenzoquat to support the
continuation of tolerances associated with that pesticide (Ref. 7). The
proposed Data Call-In Order identified the following studies for
submission as reasonably required to support the difenzoquat
tolerances: Neurotoxicity screening battery (OPPTS 870.6200) (Ref. 8);
immunotoxicity study (OPPTS 870.7800) (Ref. 9); and crop field trials
(OPPTS 860.1500) (Ref. 10) for barley hay, wheat forage, and wheat hay
(Ref. 7, p. 39964). The proposed Data Call-In Order explained, in
accordance with the statutory requirements, why the data could not be
obtained under FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) or TSCA section 4. In addition,
the proposed Data Call-In Order proposed dates for submission of the
data and related reports. Finally, the proposed Data Call-In Order
requested comment by September 4, 2012. EPA received no comments in
response to the proposed Data Call-In Order and issued a final Data
Call-In Order in the Federal Register on December 19, 2012 (Ref. 2).
Consistent with the proposed Data Call-In Order and statutory
obligations, the final Data Call-In Order included the following
elements:
     EPA required that any person who wishes to support the
difenzoquat tolerances must submit a notice identifying that person or
persons who commit to submit the data and reports in accordance with
the terms of the final Data Call-In Order. EPA explained that the
notice must be submitted on a Data Call-In Response form, how to obtain
that form, and that the deadline for submitting that form was March 19,
2013.
     EPA described the data and reports that were required to
support the continuation of the difenzoquat tolerances and required
them to be submitted by certain dates.
     EPA explained that it would proceed to revoke the
difenzoquat tolerances at 40 CFR 180.369 under FFDCA section 408(f) if
it did not receive by March 19, 2013, a Data Call-In Response form
identifying the person or persons who commit to submit the required
data and reports.
    3. International notification of EPA's FFDCA section 408(f) Data
Call-In Order. Shortly after publishing the proposed Data Call-In
Order, EPA notified the World Trade Organization of the proposed order
pursuant to its obligations under the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, January 1, 1995 (Refs. 11 and 12).
The U.S. notification, which referenced and included a link to the
proposed Data Call-In Order (Ref. 7), alerted potential U.S. trading
partners to EPA's need for data to support the continuation of the
difenzoquat tolerances and that if no notices of intent to submit such
data were received by the Agency by March 19, 2013, EPA would proceed
to revoke the difenzoquat tolerances, which would prohibit the export
to the United States of food commodities bearing difenzoquat residues
that did not qualify under the channels of trade provision (Ref. 12).
    4. EPA's FFDCA section 408(f) Revocation Order. Subsequent to the
issuance of the final Data Call-In Order, EPA received no submissions
of the Data Call-In Response form within the required 90-day period.
Therefore, in the Federal Register on May 29, 2013 (Ref. 1), EPA issued
an order revoking all difenzoquat tolerances (Revocation Order) in
accordance with the terms of its final Data Call-In Order and FFDCA
section 408(f)(2), which allows EPA to revoke by order any tolerances
that are the subject of a final Data Call-In Order for which a
submission required by that final Data Call-In Order is not received by
the date specified in that order. The Revocation Order was effective
upon the date of publication in the Federal Register, which means that
food commodities bearing difenzoquat residues after May 29, 2013, are
considered adulterated unless the commodities qualified under the
channels of trade provision. The Revocation Order explained that it was
subject to the objection and hearing procedure in FFDCA section
408(g)(2) and that the only material issue for review of the Revocation
Order was whether a submission required by the final Data Call-In Order
was made in a timely fashion. The Revocation Order established July 29,
2013, as the date by which objections must be received by the Agency.

IV. AMVAC's Objections

    On June 24, 2013, AMVAC submitted its formal objections to the
Revocation Order. See AMVAC Objections (Ref. 3). Rather than actually
challenging the revocation itself, AMVAC submitted its objections
solely for the ``purpose of . . . seek[ing] an extension of the
effective date of the revocation. . . .'' AMVAC makes two specific
objections to the timing of the Revocation Order. First, citing to its
recent shipment of difenzoquat to Canadian growers for use through
2015, AMVAC argues that ``insufficient time has been afforded to
foreign growers that continue to rely on these tolerances.'' Second,
AMVAC asserts that immediate revocation, or even revocation in 2015, is
unrealistic because the FFDCA channels of trade provision is
``unworkable in practice.'' In support of this latter claim, AMVAC
claims that barley and wheat, two crops covered by difenzoquat
tolerances, ``may be stored for a protracted period and that treated
grain might also be intermingled with untreated grain while in
storage.'' These factors, AMVAC asserts, make it ``difficult, if not
impossible, to provide the information concerning the time that these
crops were treated, which EPA requires as a means of providing evidence
that the food was lawfully treated.'' Based on its expectation that
difenzoquat will be used in Canada through 2015 and the alleged
unworkability of the FFDCA channels of trade provision, AMVAC requests
an extension of the revocation date until December 31, 2017.
    AMVAC concedes that it did not raise these concerns by commenting
on the proposed Data Call-In Order or responding to the final Data
Call-In Order within the time periods provided. Further, AMVAC does not
assert that it submitted any Data Call-In Response form indicating its
intent to submit the required data by the date specified in the final
Data Call-In Order.

V. EPA's Response to AMVAC's Objections

    EPA denies AMVAC's objections because AMVAC has not filed a proper
objection to the Revocation Order. Section 408(f)(2) of FFDCA restricts
the substance of objections the Agency may consider in reviewing an
order issued under FFDCA section 408(f)(1) to the following limited
issue: ``Whether a submission required under [an order issued under
408(f)(1)(C)] was not made by the time specified.'' 21 U.S.C.
346a(f)(2). In its objections, AMVAC does not contend that it made a
timely submission of a notice of intent to submit data, made any
submission of data, or intends to submit any required data as specified
in the final Data Call-In Order. Rather, AMVAC concedes that it
overlooked the notices and did not submit any comments on the proposed
Data Call-In Order nor any response to the final Data Call-In Order. In
addition, AMVAC does not disagree with the revocation of the
tolerances, just to the timing of the effectiveness of the Revocation
Order. Because AMVAC has not argued that ``a submission required [by
the final Data Call-In Order] was [

] made by the time specified,'' see 21 U.S.C. 346a(f)(2), its
objections do not provide a proper basis for review of the Revocation
Order under FFDCA section 408(f)(2).
    AMVAC's arguments concerning the need for additional time for
Canadian farmers to use their recently purchased difenzoquat stocks and
to simplify enforcement of the channels of trade provision are, by law,
simply not relevant at this stage of the revocation proceeding under
FFDCA section 408(f)(2). AMVAC or other interested parties had two
opportunities to raise such concerns when EPA issued the proposed Data
Call-In Order and when it issued the final Data Call-In Order. At this
point, it would be advisable for Canadian farmers who have used
difenzoquat prior to the revocation date of the tolerance to document
the timing of that usage to show compliance with the FFDCA's channels
of trade provision. EPA has alerted FDA, which monitors pesticide
residues in imported food, of the possibility that food qualifying
under the channels of trade provision may be entering the country and
will work with FDA to ensure that this provision is applied properly.
Going forward, if Canadian farmers choose to use difenzoquat, they--
like any foreign grower who uses a pesticide for which there is no U.S.
tolerance--will need to take steps to ensure that commodities they
produce that are treated with and contain residues of difenzoquat are
segregated from commodities intended for export to the United States.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action, which denies an objection to a Revocation Order, is an
adjudication in the form of an order and not a rule. 21 U.S.C.
346a(g)(2)(C). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), orders are
expressly excluded from the definition of a rule. 5 U.S.C. 551(4).
Accordingly, the regulatory assessment requirements imposed on a
rulemaking do not apply to this action, as explained further in the
following discussion.
     Because this order is not a ``regulatory action'' as that
term is defined in Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this order is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, entitled ``Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review'' (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
     For the same reason, this order does not require Agency
considerations under Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997); Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and Executive Order
12898, entitled ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February
16, 1994).
     This order does not contain any information collections
subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).
     Since this order is not a rule under the APA (5 U.S.C.
551(4)), and does not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
do not apply.
     This order does not alter the relationships or
distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in
the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the
Agency has determined that this order will not have a substantial
direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship
between the national government and the States or tribal governments,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132,
entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive
Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to
this order. In addition, this order does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538).
     This order does not involve any technical standards that
would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards
pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
     The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), does
not apply to this order because it is not a rule for purposes of 5
U.S.C. 804(3).

VII. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this order. The docket for this order, which is
identified under ADDRESSES at the beginning of this document, includes
these documents and other information considered by EPA, including
documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in
the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located
in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please
consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. EPA. Difenzoquat; Order Revoking Tolerances; Revocation order.
Federal Register (78 FR 32155, May 29, 2013) (FRL-9386-5).
2. EPA. Difenzoquat; Data Call-in Order for Pesticide Tolerances;
Final order. Federal Register (77 FR 75037, December 19, 2012) (FRL-
9372-9).
3. AMVAC. EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0441: Objection to Order Revoking
Difenzoquat Tolerances. June 24, 2013.
4. Memorandum from Susan Hummel (OPP) to Eric Miederhoff (OPP).
Difenzoquat Methyl Sulfate: Human Health Screening Level Document
for Maintaining Tolerances for Import Use. August 11, 2011.
5. EPA. Pesticides; Data Requirements for Conventional Chemicals;
Final rule. Federal Register (72 FR 60934, October 26, 2007) (FRL-
8106-5).
6. EPA. Pesticides; Guidance on Pesticide Import Tolerances and
Residue Data for Imported Food; Request for Comment; Notice. Federal
Register (65 FR 35069, June 1, 2000) (FRL-6559-3).
7. EPA. Difenzoquat; Proposed Data Call-in Order for Pesticide
Tolerance; Proposed order. Federal Register (77 FR 39962, July 6,
2012) (FRL-9352-9).
8. EPA. Health Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 870.6200 Neurotoxicity
Screening Battery. EPA 712-C-98-238. Available at http://www.regulations.gov.
9. EPA. Health Effects Test Guidelines: OPPTS 870.7800
Immunotoxicity. EPA 712-C-98-351. Available at http://www.regulations.gov.
10. EPA. Residue Chemistry Test Guidelines: OPPTS 860.1500 Crop
Field Trials. EPA 712-C-96-183. Available at http://www.regulations.gov.
11. Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures, January 1, 1995. 1867 U.N.T.S. 493.
12. United States. Notification. G/SPS/N/USA/2421. July 16, 2012.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: September 5, 2013.
Steven Bradbury,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-22603 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29804-29805]
[DOCID:fr22my08-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57823; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-38]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Extend, Through December 31, 2008, the Pilot Program That Offers
Liquidity Takers a Reduced Transaction Fee Structure for Certain Bond
Trades Executed on the NYSE Bonds System

May 15, 2008.
    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 May 15, 2008, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been substantially prepared by NYSE.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or
changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon filing with
the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 7 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to extend the pilot program that offers
liquidity takers a reduced transaction fee structure for certain bond
trades executed on the NYSE BondsSM system (``NYSE Bonds'').
The pilot program would thus end on December 31, 2008. The text of the
proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's principal office,
in the Commission's Public Reference Room, and at http://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, NYSE 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. NYSE 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 extend the pilot program that offers
liquidity takers a reduced transaction fee structure for certain bond
trades executed on NYSE Bonds. The pilot program would thus end on
December 31, 2008.
    The Exchange's pilot program reduces transaction fees charged to
liquidity takers for transactions executed on NYSE Bonds with a
staggered transaction fee schedule based on the number of bonds
purchased or sold in

excess of ten bonds. Currently, the transaction fee for orders that
take liquidity from the market is $0.50 per bond. This fee remains
unchanged for orders up to ten bonds. The extended fee filing pilot
program provides for the following transaction fee schedule: (1) When
the liquidity taker purchases or sells between one and ten bonds, the
Exchange will charge an execution fee of $0.50 per bond; (2) when the
liquidity taker purchases or sells between 11 and 25 bonds, the
Exchange will charge an execution fee of $0.20 per bond; and (3) when
the liquidity taker purchases or sells 26 bonds or more, the Exchange
will charge an execution fee of $0.10 per bond.
    For example, if a liquidity taker purchases or sells five bonds,
the Exchange will charge $0.50 per bond, or a total $2.50 execution
fee. If a liquidity taker purchases or sells 20 bonds, the Exchange
will charge $0.20 per bond or a total $4.00 execution fee. If a
liquidity taker purchases or sells 30 bonds, the Exchange will charge
$0.10 per bond or a total $3.00 execution fee.
    The Exchange will impose a $100 fee cap per transaction.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act \5\ in general and furthers
the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \6\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 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 neither solicited nor received written comments on
the proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due,
fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and subparagraph (f)(2)
of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\8\ At any time within 60 days of the filing
of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-38 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-38. 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 such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of NYSE. 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-NYSE-2008-38 and should be
submitted on or before June 12, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11427 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 170)]
[Notices]
[Page 45632-45633]
[DOCID:fr03se09-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 3

August 27, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP06-200-060.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits Sixth Revised
Sheet No 8D et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.

    Filed Date: 08/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090825-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 8, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-113-002.
    Applicants: Enbridge Pipelines (Midla) LLC.
    Description: Enbridge Pipelines, LLC submits First Revised Sheet
125 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1 to be effective
10/1/09 under RPO7-113.
    Filed Date: 08/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090826-0067.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, September 8, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-21254 Filed 8-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39396-39399]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16872]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0005; FRL-8878-8]

Pesticide Products; Receipt of Applications to Register New Uses

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces receipt of applications to register new
uses for pesticide products containing currently registered active
ingredients, pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended. EPA is
publishing this Notice of such applications, pursuant to section
3(c)(4) of FIFRA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number in the summary for the product of interest,
by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to the docket ID number
specified for the active ingredient of interest as shown in the
registration applications summaries. EPA's policy is that all comments
received will be included in the docket without change and may be made
available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed
to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit
an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and
other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk
or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A contact person is listed at the end
of each registration application summary and may be contacted by
telephone or e-mail. The mailing address for each contact person listed
is: Registration Division (7505P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

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.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

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 e-mail. 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 submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
If you are commenting on a docket that addresses multiple products,
please indicate to which registration number(s) your comment applies.
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Registration Applications for New Uses

    EPA received applications as follows to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients
pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c) of FIFRA, and is publishing
this Notice of such applications pursuant to section 3(c)(4) of FIFRA.
Notice of receipt of these

applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on the
applications.
    1. Registration Numbers: 100-811, 100-828. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2011-0486. Company name and address: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Cyprodinil.
Proposed Use: Tree nuts, crop group 14. Contact: Lisa Jones, (703) 308-
9424<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    2. Registration Numbers: 100-936, 100-941. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2010-1079. Company name and address: Syngenta Crop Protection; P.O.
Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredient: Thiamethoxam.
Proposed Use: Seed treatment on small cereal grains, crop group 15.
Contact: Julie Chao,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Registration Numbers: 100-1317. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0486. Company name and address: Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. P.O. Box
18300, Greensboro, NC 27419. Active ingredients: Cyprodinil,
difenoconazole. Proposed Use: Tree nuts, crop group 14. Contact: Lisa
Jones,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    4. Registration Numbers: 241-382, 241-427. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2011-0387. Company name and address: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis
Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709.
Active ingredient: Dimethomorph. Proposed Use: Leafy vegetable group.
Contact: Tamue L. Gibson,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    5. Registration Numbers: 264-776, 267-777, 264-826. Docket Number:
EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0458. Company name and address: Bayer CropScience LP, 2
T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active
ingredient: Trifloxystrobin. Proposed Use: Globe Artichokes. Contact:
Tawanda Maignan,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    6. Registration Numbers: 264-776, 264-989. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-
OPP-2011-0456. Company name and address: Bayer CropScience LP, 2 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient:
Trifloxystrobin. Proposed Use: Alfalfa seed. Contact: Tawanda Maignan,
(703) 308-8050<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    7. Registration Numbers: 279-3149, 279-3189, 279-3220, 279-3370.
Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0427. Company name and address: FMC
Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active
ingredient: Sulfentrazone. Proposed Use(s): For use on citrus fruits of
crop group 10-10, non-grass animal feed crops of crop group 18, small
berries and fruits of crop group 13-07, and tree nuts of crop group 14
including pistachios. Contact: Bethany Benbow,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    8. Registration Numbers: 279-3181, 279-3194, 279-3241, 279-3242,
279-3276. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0428. Company name and
address: FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
Active ingredient: Carfentrazone-ethyl. Proposed Use(s): Crop group 18,
non-grass animal feed crops. Contact: Bethany Benbow,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    9. Registration Number: 279-3330. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0427. Company name and address: FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredients: Imazethapyr, sulfentrazone.
Proposed Use(s): Crop group 18, non-grass animal feed crops. Contact:
Bethany Benbow,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    10. Registration Number: 279-3334. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0427. Company name and address: FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredients: Glyphosate IPA,
sulfentrazone. Proposed Use(s): For use on citrus fruits of crop group
10-10, non-grass animal feed crops of crop group 18, small berries and
fruits of crop group 13-07, and tree nuts of crop group 14 including
pistachios. Contact: Bethany Benbow,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    11. Registration Number: 279-3337. Docket Numbers: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0427, EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0428. Company name and address: FMC Corporation,
1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredients:
Carfentrazone-ethyl, sulfentrazone. Proposed Use(s): For use on citrus
fruits of crop group 10-10, non-grass animal feed crops of crop group
18, small berries and fruits of crop group 13-07, and tree nuts of crop
group 14 including pistachios. Contact: Bethany Benbow,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    12. Registration Number: 279-3340. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0427. Company name and address: FMC Corporation, 1735 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103. Active ingredients: Metribuzin, sulfentrazone.
Proposed Use(s): Established stands of alfalfa and sainfoin. Contact:
Bethany Benbow,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    13. Registration Number: 5905-564. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0905. Company name and address: Helena Chemical Company, 7664 Smythe
Farm Road, Memphis, TN 38120. Active ingredient: Dicamba and 2,4-
Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid. Proposed Use: Teff. Contact: Michael Walsh,
Registration Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    14. Registration Number: 7969-246. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-
0179. Company name and address: BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O.
Box 13528, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709. Active
ingredient: Metconazole. Proposed Use: Sugarcane. Contact: Tamue L.
Gibson,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    15. Registration Number/File Symbol: 8033-20, 8033-RRA. Docket
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0403. Company name and address: Nippon Soda
Co., Ltd., c/o Nisso America Inc., 45 Broadway, Suite 2120, New York,
NY 10006. Active ingredient: Acetamiprid. Proposed Use: Soybeans.
Contact: Jennifer Urbanski,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    16. Registration Number: 42750-57. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0905. Company name and address: Albaugh Inc., 1525 NE 36th Street,
Ankeny, IA 50021. Active ingredient: Dicamba (3,6-dichloro-o-anisic
acid). Proposed Use: Teff. Contact: Michael Walsh, Registration
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    17. Registration Number: 59639-151. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0771. Company name and address: Valent U.S.A. Corp., P.O. Box 8025,
Walnut Creek, CA 94596. Active ingredient: Clothianidin. Proposed Use:
Seed treatment for leafy greens, subgroup 4A. Contact: Marianne Lewis,
(703) 308-8043<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    18. Registration Number: 62719-25. Docket Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-
0905. Company name and address: Dow AgroSciences LLC, 9330 Zionsville
Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. Active ingredient: 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy
Acetic Acid. Proposed Use: Teff. Contact: Michael Walsh, Registration
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    19. Registration Number/File Symbol: 71512-8, 71512-EN. Docket
Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0457. Company name and address: ISK Biosciences
Corporation, 7470 Auburn Road, Suite A, Concord, OH 44077. Active
ingredient: Fluazinam. Proposed Use: Golf course turf. Contact: Tawanda
Maignan,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
 List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

    Dated: June 24, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-16872 Filed 7-5-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P