[Federal Register: May 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 29805]
[DOCID:fr27my10-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System or Relief

    Pursuant to title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 235 and
49 U.S.C. 20502(a), the following railroad has petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance
or modification of the signal system, or relief as detailed below.
    Docket Number: FRA-2010-0088.
    Applicant: Union Pacific Railroad Company, Mr. William E. Van
Trump, AVP Engineering--Signal/Comm/TCO, 1400 Douglas Street, STOP
0910, Omaha, Nebraska 68179.
    The Union Pacific Railroad Company seeks approval of the proposed
modification of the traffic control system at Milepost 5.46 on the
Houston East Belt Subdivision, near Houston, Texas. The modification
consists of the discontinuance and removal of intermediate signals
numbers 55, 56, 57, & 58. The reason given for the proposed change is
to improve efficiency of train operation.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2010-0088) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the document (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in
the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2010.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-12728 Filed 5-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: March 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 11172-11174]
[DOCID:fr16mr09-116]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the California High Speed
Train Project From Merced to Bakersfield, CA

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is to advise the public that FRA and the
California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) will jointly prepare a
project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and project Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Merced-to-Bakersfield section of the
Authority's proposed California High-Speed Train (HST) System in
compliance with relevant State and Federal laws, in particular the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    In 2001, the Authority and FRA started a tiered environmental
review process for the HST system and in 2005, completed the first tier
California High Speed Train Program EIR/EIS and approved the statewide
HST system for intercity travel in California between the major
metropolitan centers of Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay Area in
the north, through the Central Valley, to Los Angeles and San Diego in
the south. The approved HST system would be about 800-miles long, with
electric propulsion and steel-wheel-on-steel-rail trains capable of
operating speeds of 220 miles per hour (mph) on a dedicated system of
fully grade-separated, access-controlled steel tracks and with state-
of-the-art safety, signaling, communication, and automated train
control systems. In approving the HST system, the Authority and FRA
also selected preferred corridor alignments and station location
options throughout most of the system. In 2008, the Authority and FRA
completed a second program EIR/EIS to evaluate alignments and station
locations within the broad corridor between and including the Altamont
Pass and the Pacheco Pass to connect the Bay Area and Central Valley
portions of the HST system. The Authority and FRA selected the Pacheco
Pass with San Francisco and San Jose termini network alternative, as
well as preferred corridor alignments and station location options. The
selected alignment uses the Union Pacific (UPRR) railroad corridor
through the portion of the Central Valley from just north of Madera to
just south of Stockton and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF)
alignment from Madera to Bakersfield, as selected with the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS.
    The preparation of the Merced to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS
will involve development of preliminary engineering designs and
assessment of environmental effects associated with the construction,
operation, and maintenance of the HST system, including track,
ancillary facilities and stations, along the preferred alternative
corridors from Merced to Bakersfield.

DATES: Written comments on the scope of the Merced to Bakersfield HST
Project EIR/EIS should be provided to the Authority by April 10, 2009.
Public scoping meetings are scheduled from March 18, 2009 to March 26,
2009, as noted below in the cities of Merced, Madera, Fresno, Visalia,
and Bakersfield.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope should be sent to Ms. Carrie
Pourvahidi, Deputy Director, ATTN. Merced to Bakersfield, California
High-Speed Rail Authority, 925 L Street, Suite 1425, Sacramento, CA
95814, or via e-mail with subject line ``Merced to Bakersfield HST''
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments may also be provided orally or in
writing at the scoping meetings scheduled as follows:
     March 18, 2009: Merced Community Senior Center, from 3
p.m. to 7 p.m.
     March 19, 2009: Madera County Fairgrounds, 1850 West
Cleveland Avenue, Madera, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
     March 24, 2009: Visalia Convention Center, 303 E. Acequia
Avenue, Visalia, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
     March 25, 2009: Fresno Convention Center (Exhibit Hall),
848 M Street, Fresno, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.
     March 26, 2009: Rabobank Theater, 1001 Truxtun Avenue,
Bakersfield, from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Valenstein, Environmental
Program Manager, Office of Railroad Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE. (Mail Stop 20), Washington,
DC 20590; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Ms. Carrie Pourvahidi,
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> at the above noted address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Authority was established in 1996 and is
authorized and directed by statute to undertake the planning and
development of a proposed statewide HST network that is fully
coordinated with other public transportation

services. The Authority adopted a Final Business Plan in June 2000,
which reviewed the economic feasibility of an 800-mile-long HST capable
of operating speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour on a dedicated,
fully grade-separated state-of-the-art track. The Authority released an
updated Business Plan in November 2008.
    The FRA has responsibility for oversight of the safety of railroad
operations, including the safety of any proposed high-speed ground
transportation system. For the proposed HST, it is anticipated that FRA
would need to take certain regulatory actions prior to operation.
    In 2005, the Authority and FRA completed a Final Program EIR/EIS
for the Proposed California High Speed Train System (Statewide Program
EIR/EIS), as the first phase of a tiered environmental review process.
The Authority certified the Final Program EIR under CEQA and approved
the proposed HST System, and FRA issued a Record of Decision under NEPA
on the Final Program EIS. This statewide program EIR/EIS established
the purpose and need for the HST system, analyzed an HST system, and
compared it with a No Project/No Action Alternative and a Modal
Alternative. In approving the statewide program EIR/EIS, the Authority
and FRA selected the HST Alternative, selected certain corridors/
general alignments and general station locations for further study,
incorporated mitigation strategies and design practices, and specified
further measures to guide the development of the HST system at the
site-specific project level of environmental review to avoid and
minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. In the subsequent Bay
Area to Central Valley HST Final Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA
selected the Pacheco Pass alternative, via Henry Miller Road, as the
preferred alternative to connect the Bay Area to the Central Valley.
    The Merced to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will tier from the
Final Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Final Bay Area to Central
Valley HST Program EIR/EIS in accordance with Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations, (40 CFR 1508.28) and State CEQA Guidelines
(14 C.C.R. 15168[b]). Tiering will ensure that the Merced to
Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS builds upon all previous work prepared
for and incorporated in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS and the Bay Area
to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS.
    This Project EIR/EIS will describe site-specific environmental
impacts, will identify specific mitigation measures to address those
impacts and will incorporate design practices to avoid and minimize
potential adverse environmental impacts. The FRA and the Authority will
assess the site characteristics, size, nature, and timing of proposed
site-specific projects to determine whether the impacts are potentially
significant and whether impacts can be avoided or mitigated. This
project EIR/EIS will identify and evaluate reasonable and feasible
site-specific alignment alternatives, and evaluate the impacts from
construction, operation, and maintenance of the HST system. Information
and documents regarding this HST environmental review process will be
made available through the Authority's Internet site: http://
www.cahighspeedrail.gov/.
    Purpose and Need: The purpose of the proposed HST system is to
provide a new mode of high-speed intercity travel that would link major
metropolitan areas of the State; interface with international airports,
mass transit, and highways; and provide added capacity to meet
increases in intercity travel demand in California in a manner
sensitive to and protective of California's unique natural resources.
The need for a HST system is directly related to the expected growth in
population, and increases in intercity travel demand in California over
the next twenty years and beyond. With the growth in travel demand,
there will be an increase in travel delays arising from the growing
congestion on California's highways and at airports. In addition, there
will be negative effects on the economy, quality of life, and air
quality in and around California's metropolitan areas from a
transportation system that will become less reliable as travel demand
increases. The intercity highway system, commercial airports, and
conventional passenger rail serving the intercity travel market are
currently operating at or near capacity, and will require large public
investments for maintenance and expansion to meet existing demand and
future growth.
    Alternatives: The Merced to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will
consider a No Action or No Project Alternative and an HST Alternative
for the Merced to Bakersfield section.
    No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative (No Project or No
Build) represents the conditions in the corridor as it existed in 2007,
and as it would exist based on programmed and funded improvements to
the intercity transportation system and other reasonably foreseeable
projects through 2035, taking into account the following sources of
information: State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Regional
Transportation Plans (RTPs) for all modes of travel, airport plans,
intercity passenger rail plans, city and county plans.
    HST Alternative: The Authority proposes to construct, operate and
maintain an electric-powered steel-wheel-on-steel-rail HST system,
about 800 miles long, capable of operating speeds of 220 mph on
dedicated, fully graded-separated tracks, with state-of-the-art safety,
signaling, and automated train control systems. As part of the Bay Area
to Central Valley HST Program EIR/EIS, the Authority and FRA selected
the Union Pacific (UPRR) railroad alignment through the portion of the
Central Valley from just north of Madera to just south of Stockton as
the preferred alternative. This Project EIR/EIS will also evaluate the
BNSF railroad alignment in this part of the Central Valley because of
the uncertainty of negotiating with the UPRR for some of their right-
of-way and will continue investigation of alignments/linkages to a
potential maintenance facility at Castle AFB. The BNSF alignment from
Madera to Bakersfield was selected as the preferred alignment for this
portion of the Central Valley in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS. As
defined in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS, this alignment would utilize
the UPRR corridor through the urban area of Fresno, and would require a
new high-speed alignment around the city of Hanford. Alignment
alternatives will also be evaluated to serve a potential station in the
Visalia/Hanford/Tulare area. The HST would operate in this area at
speeds up to 220 mph on tracks separate from the existing BNSF and UP
tracks. Further engineering studies to be undertaken as part of this
EIR/EIS process will examine and refine alignments in the BNSF and UP
corridors. The entire alignment would be grade separated from existing
roadways. In addition, alternative sites for right-of-way maintenance,
train storage facilities and a heavy maintenance and repair facility
will be evaluated in the Merced to Bakersfield HST project area.
    The three preferred station locations selected by the Authority and
FRA through the Bay Area to Central Valley HST Final Program-Level EIR/
EIS will be evaluated in the Merced to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS.
These stations are downtown Merced, downtown Fresno, and downtown
Bakersfield. Alternative station sites at or near the selected station
locations may be identified and evaluated. A potential HST station to
serve the

Visalia/Hanford/Tulare area will also be evaluated in this Project EIR/
EIS.
    Probable Effects: The purpose of the EIR/EIS process is to explore
in a public setting the effects of the proposed project on the
physical, human, and natural environment. The FRA and the Authority
will continue the tiered evaluation of all significant environmental,
social, and economic impacts of the construction and operation of the
HST system. Impact areas to be addressed include transportation
impacts; safety and security; land use and zoning; land acquisition,
displacements, and relocations; agricultural land impacts; cumulative
and secondary impacts; cultural resource impacts, including impacts on
historical and archaeological resources and parklands/recreation areas;
neighborhood compatibility and environmental justice; and natural
resource impacts including air quality, wetlands, water resources,
noise, vibration, energy, wildlife and ecosystems, including endangered
species. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts will
be identified and evaluated.
    The Merced to Bakersfield HST Project EIR/EIS will be prepared in
accordance with FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts
(64 FR 28545 [May 26, 1999]) and will address not only NEPA and CEQA
but will also address as necessary other applicable statutes,
regulations, and executive orders, including the Clean Air Act, Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Executive Order
12898 on Environmental Justice.
    This EIR/EIS process will also continue the NEPA/Clean Water Act
Section 404 integration process established through the Statewide
Program EIR/EIS process. The EIR/EIS will evaluate project alignment
alternatives, and station and maintenance facility locations to support
a determination of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (``LEDPA'') by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    Scoping and Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS
process during scoping and review of the resulting environmental
documents. Comments are invited from all interested agencies and the
public to ensure the full range of issues related to the proposed
action and reasonable alternatives are addressed and all significant
issues are identified. In particular, FRA is interested in determining
whether there are areas of environmental concern where there might be a
potential for significant site-specific impacts. Public agencies with
jurisdiction are requested to advise FRA and the Authority of the
applicable permit and environmental review requirements of each agency,
and the scope and content of the environmental information that is
germane to the agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with
the proposed project. Public agencies are requested to advise FRA if
they anticipate taking a major action in connection with the proposed
project and if they wish to cooperate in the preparation of the Project
EIR/EIS. Public scoping meetings have been scheduled as an important
component of the scoping process for both the State and Federal
environmental review. The scoping meetings described in this Notice
will also be the subject of additional public notification.
    FRA is seeking participation and input of all interested Federal,
State, and local agencies, Native American groups, and other concerned
private organizations or individuals on the scope of the EIR/EIS.
Implementation of the Merced to Bakersfield section of the HST system
is a Federal undertaking with the potential to affect historic
properties. As such, it is subject to the requirements of section 106
of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f). In
accordance with regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 36 CFR part 800, FRA intends to coordinate compliance
with section 106 of this Act with the preparation of the EIR/EIS,
beginning with the identification of consulting parties through the
scoping process, in a manner consistent with the standards set out in
36 CFR 800.8.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2009.
Ray LaHood,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation.
 [FR Doc. E9-5579 Filed 3-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 66 (Monday, April 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 19181]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07259]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: To Be Published.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, April 8,
2020 at 3:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
April 8, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. has been changed to Wednesday, April 8, 2020
at 2:00 p.m.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: For further information and to
ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed,
please contact the Office of the Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 1, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07259 Filed 4-2-20; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                    E15 Proposed Rule on UST Compatibility
   Stakeholders Meetings Jan  -  April 2021 (during the open comment period)

1/29/21  -  OUST and NACS
OUST  -  Mark Barolo, Tony Raia, Liz McDermott, Ryan Haerer
National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS)  -  Paige Anderson
Steptoe and Johnson LLP representing NACS and SIGMA  -  Doug Kantor and Jessi Frend

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion  -   OUST and NACS discussed the proposed rulemaking on E15 and UST compatibility.  NACS asked questions about the contents of the proposed rule as well and the next steps for the rulemaking.  OUST clarified the proposal and explained we are seeking comments from all stakeholders during the 90-day comment period.

2/4/21  -  OUST, R8 and MT
OUST - Erin Knighton, Ryan Haerer, Tony Raia
Region 8 - Amy Hensley, Fran Chambus, Theresa Martella, Marta Grabowski, Roberta Person, Jeff Fitzgibbons
Montana - Wally Jemmings, Brett Smith, Seth Hendrix, Emily Ewart

Agenda and Discussion:
After introductions, Ryan Haerer presented a short slide presentation about the proposed regulation. We then proceeded to a question and answer session for a few questions:
 MDEQ question on details of the labeling part of the rule and discussion that it was a detailed from the Office of Air and Radiation part of the rule, but with high level summary as OUST understood it.
 MDEQ question if components to assemble a fully compatible system were available in the market; EPA answered that we believed yes, but if MDEQ understand otherwise that information will be valuable to the rulemaking process.
 MDEQ question about the requirement for all repairs to be 100 percent compatible to apply to all parts of the UST system, given that some systems have other incompatible components that won't be replaced and will never store E15. OUST explained that that is how the proposal is written, but that feedback will be valuable to the rulemaking process.
 MDEQ process related question about SPA; OUST explained that re-SPA will be required, but hope that it will be a streamlined version because the change would be only a portion of the regulation.
Follow ups:
 Discussion that if MDEQ has any comments they understood they need to go formally in the docket.
 MDEQ anticipated having some information exchange with their constituents now that were able to clarify some questions with EPA.
 EPA offered to be available for any further questions or discussion needed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

2/16/21  -  OUST, R3 and States  -  MD, VA, DE, DC, PA
OUST  -  Ryan Haerer, Liz McDermott, Tony Raia, Sue Burnell, Tom Walker
R3  -  Tom Uybarreta, Harry Daw, Dave Iacono, Caitlin Stormont, Khalia Thompson, Melissa Toffel, Donna Weiss
States  -  Renee Hooper, Chris Rolster, Betty Lamp, Karen Haley, Josh Blanco, Thomas Krauss, Randy Martin, Martin Matlin, Jacqueline Morrison, Michael Moyer, Fianna Phill, Ruth Porter, Russ Ellison, Kris Shiffer, Joe Sizemore, Noreen Wagner, Melissa McCune

Ryan Haerer gave an overview of the E15 compatibility portions of the E15 proposed rule.  OUST then answered questions from the states on details of the proposed regulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2/16/21  -  OUST, ASTSWMO and interested state partners

ASTSWMO hosted a webinar for all of its member states to ask questions about the E15 proposed rule.  OUST gave a brief presentation explaining the proposed rule and then answered questions from state partners about the rule.  OUST asked all interested stakeholders to submit comments to the proposed rule during the official comment period which is open until April 19, 2021.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attendees:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Henderson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wietfeld
Charles Reyes
Jim Bentley
Nate Blasing
Don Taylor
Dania Rodriguez
Eric Kelley
David Levering
Shaheer Muhanna
Simon Li (SC DHEC)
Fianna Phill
Jon McRae
Brent Everett
Ruth Porter
Michael Hollis
Brock Stuber
Kim Walker
Mark Olsen
Carlos Gonzalez
Dunn, Greg
Tim Smith
Therron Blatter
Chuck Hyatt
Wagner, Scott
ROY DENNIS ILAGA
Stuart F
Bareta, Greg P - DATCP
Stephanie Briney (SC UST)
Alicia Meadows
Bill Hickman
Wilmarie Rivera
Ilana Shapiro
Tim Bahr
Tom Walter
Tony Raia
Doug Hansen
Erin Knighton
Rachelle Miller
John Morris
Randy Martin
David Witherow
Moises Torrent
Sharon Fredericks
Peter Zack
Michael O'Mallan
Sharon Morgan
Terry Florentz
Eric Cathcart
Kristi Lowder
Scott Johnson
Greg Davis
Fianna Phill
Susan Adlamini
Annette Ademasu
John Lamb
Susan Thayer
Hall, Latoya A
Renee Hooper
Marcus Meerian
Suzanne Halter
Jill Williams-Hall
Timothy Cropley
Lisa Niedermayer
McDuffie, Sam
Lynn Chambers
Justin Lankford
Jill Stoltz
Cleland, Jaymi
Zebulon Jackson
Zach Pauley
Dana Bahar
Nigel Luther
Ruth Strauss
Tom Newcomb
Wilmarie Rivera
Megan Slayden
Joan Coyle
Pamela Nicola
Kris Shiffer
Joshua Blanco
Oma Gilbreth
Leslie Carr-Polly
Randy Martin
Tara Rosie
Andrew "Drew" Imke
Steven Krichbaum
Russell Ellison
James Gastineau
Steven Booe
Tom Newcomb
Chad Hall (GA EPD)

Vincent J Pereira
Diana Foss
Trent Benanti
Mihir Mehta
Lowder, Mike
Joe Godwin
Mark Barolo
Philip Dussault
Greg Dunn
Camille Bennett
Adrian Ducharme
Ryan Haerer
Ted Unkles
Liz McDermott
Matt Jones
Tiffany Yee
Ray Worley
Robyn Strickland
Michael Hester
Nazmul Haque
Travis Weedn
Patti Mullan MassDEP
Terin Morris
Mark Latham
Terin Morris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Ewart

2/16/21  -  OUST and American Coalition for Ethanol

OUST - Mark Barolo, Tony Raia, and Ryan Haerer
American Coalition for Ethanol - Ron Lamberty and Brian Jennings

The participants discussed questions about priority deadlines for comments; OUST answered that all comments received by the April deadline will be considered. They also discussed general questions about applicability of the proposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2/17/21  -  OUST and Fiberglass Tank and Pipe Institute and their members
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUST  -  Mark Barolo, Tony Raia, Ryan Haerer, Liz McDermott, Russ Brauksieck, Ilana Shapiro
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTPI  -  Bob Renkes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTPI Members  -  Bill Schneider, Ron Shaffer, Jeff Lexvold, Tom Tietjen, Jeff Leiter, Lisa Blassingame
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OUST answered questions about the UST compatibility portions of the proposed E15 rulemaking.  OUST asked all interested stakeholders to submit comments to the proposed rule during the official comment period which is open until April 19, 2021.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2/18/21 OUST and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Haerer of OUST met virtually with Nate Blasing of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to talk through various issues related to biofuels compatibility. Part of the conversation included discussing and explaining the current E15 proposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/4/21  -  OUST, R3 and States  -  MD, VA, DE, DC, PA
OUST  -  Ryan Haerer, Liz McDermott, Tony Raia, Sue Burnell, Russ Brauksieck, Erin Knighton, Tim Smith
R3  -  Tom Uybarreta, Dave Iacono, Melissa Toffel,
States  -  Renee Hooper, Chris Ralston, Betty Lamp, Karen Haley, Josh Blanco, James Gallagher, Randy Martin, Fianna Phill, Ruth Porter, Russ Ellison, Kris Shiffer, Joe Sizemore, Noreen Wagner, Melissa McCune, Sharon Hamilton, Jason Sunde, Tom Walter

OUST answered questions from the states on details of the proposed E15 regulation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/5/21  -  OUST and Veeder Root
On March 5, EPA representatives Mark Barolo, Tony Raia, Russ Brauksieck, Tim Smith, and Ryan Haerer met with Stephen Coppola and David Emmington of Veeder Root. The meeting was primarily about technical topics for the OUST program, but discussed the proposed rulemaking currently accepting comments, and provided them with the presentation about the proposal that is in the docket, which includes links to the Federal Register notice and comment pages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/9/2021  -  OUST and PA State Staff, PA Storage Tank Advisory Committee

On March 9, 2021, Ryan Haerer of OUST presented on the E15 proposal to the Pennsylvania Storage Tank Advisory Committee (STAC). Kris Shiffer of the Pennsylvania DEQ coordinated the presentation and was the meeting host. The E15 proposal and follow up questions were one of several agenda items for the STAC meeting. EPA offered to follow up individually with any member of the group interested in more discussion; the STAC (at the time of the meeting adjournment) had voted to proceed without a group comment, but encouraged its individual members to proceed and comment without notifying the rest of the group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/23/21  -  OUST, R4 and Florida DEP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tuesday, March 23, Ryan Haerer and Erin Knighton of EPA OUST and Nancy McKee Perez and Terry Self of EPA Region 4 met with Amanda Dorsett, Tim Bahr, Kim Walker, Teresa Booeshaghi, Jeff Gregg, and Ashanti McBride from Florida DEP. The meeting agenda focused on issues unrelated to the E15 rule proposal, but the group did discuss the rulemaking process and comment period during the course of discussion on emerging fuels issues.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/24/21  -  OUST, OAR and Underwriters Laboratory (UL)

OUST  -  Mark Barolo, Tony Raia, Ryan Haerer, Liz McDermott, Tony Raia, Russ Brauksieck, Erin Knighton, OAR  -  Lauren Michaels, Jessie Mroz
UL  -  Michael Slowinske, Derek Greenauer, Roland Riegel, Edgar Wolff-Klammer, Thomas Daley, Bryan Michalik

UL explained their plans for comments on both the labeling and UST compatibility portions of the proposed rule.  OUST and OAR answered questions from UL about the proposed rule.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3/26/21  -  OUST and CA State Water Resource Control Board
On Friday March 26, 2021, Mark Barolo and Russ Brauksieck had a meeting with CA State Water Resource Control Board (representatives present were Laura Fisher, Julie Osborn, Tom Henderson and Roshani Dantas) where the main focus of the meeting was on airport hydrant systems.  That topic finished early and CA asked to take the rest of the time to talk about the E15 proposed rule.  Laura Fisher raised a couple of issues and concerns.  She was encouraged to submit the issues and concerns in comments to the docket.


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                     	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
                                                      	AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

Date:	May 15, 2017

Subject:	Rimsulfuron.  Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for New Use or Registration Requests for Grasses Grown for Seed and Cranberry.

PC Code: 129009
DP Barcode:  D438172
Decision No.: 519986
Registration No.: 66222-184, 352-768
Petition No.: 6E8496
Regulatory Action: Section 3 Registration
Risk Assessment Type: Occupational Exposure Assessment
Case No.: NA
TXR No.: NA
CAS No.: 122931-48-0
MRID No.: NA
40 CFR: §180.478

From:	Laura Bacon, Biologist
	Risk Assessment Branch III (RAB3)
	Health Effects Division (7509P)

Through:	Barry O'Keefe, Biologist
	RAB3
	Health Effects Division (7509P)

	and

	Ume Hassan, ExpoSAC Reviewer #1
	Lata Venkateshwara, ExpoSAC Reviewer #2
	Exposure Science Advisory Committee (ExpoSAC) / HED

To:	Sidney Jackson, Minor Use Team
	Minor Use and Emergency Response Branch
	Registration Division (7505P)

Introduction

The Registration Division (RD) requested that the Health Effects Division (HED) conduct an exposure and risk assessment to evaluate the hazard and exposure data and conduct an occupational and residential exposure assessment, as needed, to estimate the risks to human health that will result from the proposed uses or registration requests for rimsulfuron on grasses grown for seed and cranberry.

It is HED policy to use the best available data to assess exposure. Several sources of generic data were used in this assessment as surrogate data in the absence of chemical-specific data, including Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database Version 1.1 (PHED 1.1) and the Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF) database. Some of these data are proprietary, and subject to the data protection provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Note:  This memorandum was reviewed by the Exposure Science Advisory Committee (ExpoSAC) on May 4, 2017.
                               Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary	4
2.0 Risk Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations	5
2.1 Summary of Risk Estimates	5
2.2 Label Recommendations from Occupational Assessment	5
3.0 Hazard Characterization	6
4.0 Use Profile	7
5.0 Residential Exposure and Risk Estimates	8
6.0 Non-Occupational Spray Drift Exposure and Risk Estimates	8
7.0 Non-Occupational Bystander Post-Application Inhalation Exposure and Risk Estimates	9
8.0 Occupational Exposure and Risk Estimates	9
8.1 Occupational Handler Exposure/Risk Estimates	9
8.2 Occupational Post-Application Exposure/Risk Estimates	13
8.2.1 Occupational Post-application Inhalation Exposure/Risk Estimates	13
8.2.2 Occupational Post-application Dermal Exposure/Risk Estimates	13
Appendix A.  Summary of Occupational and Residential Non-cancer Algorithms	15

1.0 Executive Summary

Rimsulfuron is a systemic herbicide belonging to the sulfonylurea group that is used for pre- and post-emergent control of annual grasses, broadleaf weeds, and yellow nutsedge. It has been registered for use on bushberries, caneberries, grape, citrus, tree nuts, pome fruits, stone fruits, corn, chicory, and non-cropland areas (e.g., professional and college sports fields, commercial turf, golf courses, roadsides, industrial sites, utility substations and rangeland).

Proposed Uses
DuPont Crop Protection (DuPont) has submitted a petition for the active ingredient (ai), rimsulfuron, for a new use on grasses grown for seed (fescue and perennial ryegrass) and to add grasses grown for seed (Oregon and Washington only) to the DuPont(TM) Matrix(R) SG Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 352-768) end-use product label at a single maximum application rate of 0.048 lb ai/A; and to add cranberry to the Pruvin(R) Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 66222-184) end-use product label at a single maximum application rate of 0.031 lb ai/A. Pruvin(R) Herbicide is a dry flowable formulation and DuPont(TM) Matrix(R) SG is a water soluble granule formulation; both products contain 25% of the ai rimsulfuron. These products direct mixers, loaders, applicators and other handlers to wear a long-sleeved shirt and long pants; chemical-resistant gloves made of any waterproof material; and shoes plus socks. The restricted entry interval (REI) listed on both end-use product labels is 4 hours.

Exposure Profile
For this action, occupational exposures to rimsulfuron are expected for short- and intermediate-term durations from handling and post-application activities. Potential routes of exposure include both dermal and inhalation.

Hazard Characterization
The adequacy of the rimsulfuron toxicity database is considered complete. Short- and intermediate-term inhalation risks are based on systemic effects observed from a 90-day oral toxicity study in dogs. A dermal endpoint was not selected for risk assessment because rimsulfuron is not expected to be toxic through the dermal route. No quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility was identified following pre- and/or postnatal exposures of rimsulfuron in rats or rabbits. There is no genotoxicity, neurotoxicity, or immunotoxicity concerns observed in the available toxicity studies. The data requirements for a dermal toxicity study and a subchronic inhalation toxicity study have been waived (J. Van Alstine, TXR 0050008, 4/26/2012; K. Rury, TXR 0056438, 9/17/2012). Rimsulfuron is "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans." The level of concern (LOC) for all routes and durations of exposure for occupational exposure and risk assessment is a margin of exposure (MOE) of 100.

Residential Handler and Post-Application Exposure and Risk Estimates
Rimsulfuron is registered for use on non-residential athletic fields and other non-residential non-cropland areas. While there is the potential for post-application exposures to rimsulfuron (e.g., treated turf on golf courses), the dermal route of exposure has not been assessed because there is no adverse systemic hazard resulting from dermal exposures to rimsulfuron. Therefore, a residential exposure assessment has not been conducted.

Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Estimates
There are no occupational risk estimates of concern associated with the proposed uses of rimsulfuron. The dermal route of exposure has not been assessed because there is no adverse systemic hazard resulting from dermal exposures to rimsulfuron.  The occupational handler inhalation risk estimates quantified in this assessment resulted in MOEs between 990 to 1,800,000, and are not of concern (LOC = 100). Because the short- and intermediate-term inhalation points of departure (PODs) are the same, short-term occupational exposure risk estimates are protective of the intermediate-term duration of exposure.

Occupational Post-Application Exposure and Risk Estimates
The dermal route of exposure has not been assessed because there is no adverse systemic hazard resulting from dermal exposures to rimsulfuron. Based on the Agency's current practices, a quantitative non-cancer occupational post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed for rimsulfuron at this time. If new policies or procedures are put into place, the Agency may revisit the need for a quantitative occupational post-application inhalation exposure assessment for rimsulfuron.

Human Studies Review
This risk assessment relies in part on data from studies in which adult human subjects were intentionally exposed to a pesticide or other chemical. These data, which include PHED 1.1 and the AHETF database are (1) subject to ethics review pursuant to 40 CFR 26, (2) have received that review, and (3) are compliant with applicable ethics requirements. For certain studies, the ethics review may have included review by the Human Studies Review Board. Descriptions of data sources, as well as guidance on their use, can be found at the Agency website.

2.0 Risk Assessment Conclusions and Recommendations

2.1 Summary of Risk Estimates

There are no occupational risk estimates of concern associated with the proposed new uses of rimsulfuron. The occupational inhalation risk estimates quantified in this assessment resulted in MOEs between 990 to 1,800,000, and are not of concern (LOC = 100). Because the short- and intermediate-term inhalation PODs are the same, short-term occupational exposure risk estimates are protective of intermediate-term exposure risk estimates.

Although occupational dermal exposure is expected following treatment of agricultural crops, dermal hazard was not identified for rimsulfuron. Therefore, quantitative dermal risk assessments for occupational handlers or post-application workers were not conducted for the proposed use of rimsulfuron.

2.2 Label Recommendations from Occupational Assessment

Matrix(R) SG Herbicide (EPA Reg. No. 352-768) proposes a single maximum application rate of 0.048 lb ai/A. However, the calculated maximum application rate is 0.047 lb ai/A based upon information stated on the label. This discrepancy should be clarified on the label.

3.0 Hazard Characterization

Acute Toxicity
Technical rimsulfuron has low acute toxicity (Toxicity Category IV) via oral, dermal and inhalation route of exposures. It is a moderate eye irritant (Toxicity Category III) and is not a skin sensitizer (Table 3.1).

Table 3.1 Acute Toxicity Profile of Rimsulfuron
                                 Guideline No.
                                  Study Type
                                    Results
                               Toxicity Category
870.1100
Acute oral  -  rat
LD50 = > 5000 mg/kg
                                      IV
870.1200
Acute dermal  -  rat
LD50 = > 2000 mg/kg
                                      IV
870.1300
Acute inhalation  -  rat
LC50 = > 5.4 mg/L
                                      IV
870.2400
Acute eye irritation
Moderate eye irritant
                                      III
870.2500
Acute dermal irritation
Not an irritant
                                      IV
870.2600
Skin sensitization
Not a sensitizer
                                      --

Toxicological PODs Used for Risk Assessment
The endpoints and PODs remain unchanged since the last completed risk assessment for rimsulfuron (M. Mercado-Feliciano, D425703, 09/14/2015). It should be noted that studies used for endpoint selection have conservative No Observed Adverse Effect Level/Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL/LOAEL) values that have not been updated to reflect current standards for evaluating toxicity studies. Updates would result in higher NOAEL/LOAEL values and, given the current risk picture, updates would not impact the overall findings of the risk assessment.

The toxicity database for rimsulfuron indicates that target organs are the liver and kidney in the rat and dog, along with the testes and blood in the mouse and dog. In the mouse, the stomach was also a target organ. Adverse changes in body weight and food consumption were observed in rats, mice and dogs. No quantitative or qualitative evidence of increased susceptibility was identified following pre- and/or postnatal exposures of rimsulfuron in rats or rabbits. There was no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity in the database. The data requirements for a dermal toxicity study and a subchronic inhalation toxicity study have been waived (J. Van Alstine, TXR 0050008, 4/26/2012; K. Rury, TXR 0056438, 9/17/2012). Rimsulfuron is not mutagenic and has been classified as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans," based on the lack of evidence for carcinogenicity in studies conducted in rats and mice.

The endpoint for inhalation risk assessments for occupational workers was chosen from the 90-day oral study in the dog, and was based on kidney effects. A dermal endpoint was not selected for risk assessment because: (1) rimsulfuron has low acute dermal toxicity; (2) there is no qualitative or quantitative offspring susceptibility in the toxicity database, (3) most sulfonylureas for which guideline dermal studies were submitted to the Agency showed no effects through the dermal route up to the limit dose; and (4) dermal absorption is generally low (DAF < 20%) for sulfonylureas.
For all routes and durations for the occupational exposure and risk assessment, the resulting LOC is an MOE of 100. Table 3.2 provides a detailed summary of the toxicity endpoints and PODs selected for the occupational exposure risk assessment for rimsulfuron.

Table 3.2.  Summary of Toxicity Endpoints and Points of Departure for Rimsulfuron for Use in Occupational Risk Assessment.
                                   Exposure
                                   Scenario
                              Point of Departure
                                 Uncertainty/
                              FQPA Safety Factors
                RfD, PAD, Level of Concern for Risk Assessment
                        Study and Toxicological Effects
Inhalation Exposure: Short- and Intermediate-Term
NOAEL= 6.25 mg/kg /day
Inhalation toxicity assumed to be equivalent to oral toxicity.
UFA = 10X
UFH = 10X
Occupational LOC for MOE = 100
90-day toxicity study  -  Dog
LOAEL = 125 mg/kg/day based on increased urinary volume, kidney weights, and decreased osmolality.
Dermal Exposure: Short- and Intermediate-Term
A dermal endpoint was not selected because rimsulfuron is not expected to be toxic through the dermal route.
Cancer (oral, dermal, inhalation)
Not a carcinogen based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in rats and mice.
UF = uncertainty factor, FQPA SF = FQPA safety factor, NOAEL = no observed adverse effect level, LOAEL = lowest observed adverse effect level, MOE = margin of exposure, LOC = level of concern.

Absorption
Since no inhalation absorption data are available, toxicity by the inhalation route is considered to be equivalent to the estimated toxicity by the oral route of exposure.

Body Weight
The standard body weight for the general population (80 kg) was used for all exposure scenarios covered in this risk assessment since the endpoints selected were not developmental and/or fetal effects.

4.0 Use Profile

Rimsulfuron is proposed for the pre- and post-emergent control of certain grasses and broadleaves/sedges for cranberry. Rimsulfuron is proposed to control seedling annual bluegrass, annual and perennial ryegrass, volunteer wheat and roughstock bluegrass in grasses grown for seed (fescue and ryegrass) in the states of Oregon and Washington, only. Table 4.1 provides a summary of the proposed use directions.

Table 4.1.  Summary of Directions for Use of Rimsulfuron.
                       Applic. Timing, Type, and  Equip.
                    Trade Name; Formulation [EPA Reg. No.]
                                 Max. Single
Application Rate
                          Max. No. Applic. per Season
                           Max. Annual Applic. Rate
                                  PHI (days)
                        Use Directions and Limitations
                                 Cranberry[2]
                Pre- or post-emergence broadcast or chemigation
                            Pruvin(R); dry flowable
                                   (25% ai)
                                  [66222-184]
                       2.0 oz product/A (0.031 lb ai/A)
                                       2
                  4.0 oz product/A/year (0.063 lb ai/A/year)
                                      60
21-day retreatment interval (RTI); A spray adjuvant must be added with each application. For chemigation, do not apply by flood or drip irrigation. Do not apply in a spray solution with a pH below 4 or above 8. Do not apply by air.
                Grasses grown for seed (Fescue and Ryegrass)[3]
                       Pre-emergence ground broadcast[1]
                   Matrix(R); water soluble granule (25% ai)
                                   [352-768]
                       3.0 oz product/A (0.048 lb ai/A)
                                       1
                     3.0 oz product/A/year (0.048 lb ai/A)
                                      NA
For use in Oregon and Washington only. Recommended for use in conjunction with carbon planted Perennial Ryegrass and Tall Fescue grown for seed. Do not apply through any type of irrigation system.
1 Because aerial applications were not prohibited on the supplemental label for EPA Reg. No. 352-768, that use pattern was also assessed for grass grown for seed.
[2] Cranberry = field crop, typical
3 Grasses grown for seed (fescue and ryegrass) = field crop, high-acreage

5.0 Residential Exposure and Risk Estimates

Residential exposures are not anticipated from the proposed uses of rimsulfuron. Rimsulfuron is registered for use on non-residential athletic fields and other non-residential non-cropland areas. While there is the potential for post-application exposures to rimsulfuron (e.g., treated turf on golf courses), the dermal route of exposure has not been assessed because there is no adverse systemic hazard resulting from dermal exposures to rimsulfuron. Therefore, a residential exposure assessment has not been conducted.

6.0 Non-Occupational Spray Drift Exposure and Risk Estimates

Spray drift is a potential source of exposure to those nearby pesticide applications. This is particularly the case with aerial application, but, to a lesser extent, spray drift can also be a potential source of exposure from the ground application methods (e.g., groundboom and airblast) employed for rimsulfuron. The Agency has been working with the Spray Drift Task Force (a task force composed of various registrants which was developed as a result of a Data Call-In issued by EPA), EPA Regional Offices and State Lead Agencies for pesticide regulation and other parties to develop the best spray drift management practices (see the agency's Spray Drift website for more information).  The Agency has also developed a policy on how to appropriately consider spray drift as a potential source of exposure in risk assessments for pesticides.

Rimsulfuron is registered on multiple agricultural use sites, as well as on non-agricultural use sites that could result in spray drift. The potential for spray drift was previously quantitatively evaluated for rimsulfuron during the Registration Review process; incidental oral risk estimates from drift onto residential areas were evaluated for rimsulfuron using the maximum registered application rate of 0.063 lb ai/A on non-crop use sites (i.e., airports, highway, railroad, and utility rights of way; sewage disposal areas, uncultivated agricultural areas; non-crop producing areas). Children's (1 to <2 year old) incidental oral risk estimates from indirect exposure to rimsulfuron related to spray drift resulted in no risks of concern at field edge; the resulting MOEs were 25,000 to 35,000 (MOEs > 100). Dermal risk estimates were not calculated because there was no dermal hazard identified in the rimsulfuron database. This current action is not expected to result in increased spray drift potential exposures. Further information may be found in the draft risk assessment for Registration Review of rimsulfuron (M. Mercado-Feliciano, D425703, 09/14/2015).

7.0 Non-Occupational Bystander Post-Application Inhalation Exposure and Risk Estimates

Volatilization of pesticides may be a source of post-application inhalation exposure to individuals nearby pesticide applications. The Agency sought expert advice and input on issues related to volatilization of pesticides from its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in December 2009, and received the SAP's final report on March 2, 2010 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0687-0037). The Agency has evaluated the SAP report and has developed a Volatilization Screening Tool and a subsequent Volatilization Screening Analysis (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0219).
During Registration Review, the agency will utilize this analysis to determine if data (i.e., flux studies, route-specific inhalation toxicological studies) or further analysis is required for rimsulfuron.

8.0 Occupational Exposure and Risk Estimates

8.1 Occupational Handler Exposure/Risk Estimates

HED uses the term handlers to describe those individuals who are involved in the pesticide application process. HED believes that there are distinct job functions or tasks related to applications and exposures can vary depending on the specifics of each task.  Job requirements (amount of chemical used in each application), the kinds of equipment used, the target being treated, and the level of protection used by a handler can cause exposure levels to differ in a manner specific to each application event.

Based on the anticipated use patterns and current labeling, types of equipment and techniques that can potentially be used, occupational handler exposure is expected from the proposed uses. The quantitative exposure/risk assessment developed for occupational handlers is based on the methods of application and includes aerial, chemigation, groundboom, and handheld equipment. Refer to Table 8.1.1. for a detailed list of each occupational exposure scenario.

Occupational Handler Exposure Data and Assumptions
A series of assumptions and exposure factors served as the basis for completing the occupational handler risk assessments. Each assumption and factor is detailed below on an individual basis.

Application Rate:  The proposed application rate information is provided in Table 4.1.

Unit Exposures:  It is the policy of HED to use the best available data to assess handler exposure.  Sources of generic handler data, used as surrogate data in the absence of chemical-specific data, include PHED 1.1, the AHETF database, the Outdoor Residential Exposure Task Force (ORETF) database, or other registrant-submitted occupational exposure studies.  Some of these data are proprietary (e.g., AHETF data), and subject to the data protection provisions of FIFRA.  The standard values recommended for use in predicting handler exposure that are used in this assessment, known as "unit exposures", are outlined in the "Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table", which, along with additional information on HED policy on use of surrogate data, including descriptions of the various sources, can be found at the Agency website.

Area Treated or Amount Handled:  The daily areas treated or amounts handled were defined for each handler scenario (in appropriate units) by determining the amount that can be reasonably treated by an individual in a single day. When possible, the assumptions for daily areas treated or amounts handled are taken from the HED's ExpoSAC Policy 9.1: "Standard Values for Daily Acres Treated in Agriculture". The values used for area treated may be found in Table 8.1.1.

Exposure Duration:  HED classifies exposures from 1 to 30 days as short-term and exposures 30 days to six months as intermediate-term. Exposure duration is determined by many things, including the exposed population, the use site, the pest pressure triggering the use of the pesticide, and the cultural practices surrounding that use site. For most agricultural uses, it is reasonable to believe that occupational handlers will not apply the same chemical every day for more than a one-month time frame; however, there may be a large agribusiness and/or commercial applicators who may apply a product over a period of weeks (e.g., completing multiple applications for multiple clients within a region). Based on the proposed uses, short- and intermediate-term exposures to rimsulfuron are expected. The proposed use directions for the DuPont(TM) Matrix(R) SG Herbicide end-use product allow one application to grass grown for seed per year. The proposed use directions for the Pruvin(R) Herbicide Dry Flowable end-use product specifies up to two applications on cranberry with a 21-day retreatment interval. Therefore, long-term exposures are not expected.

Mitigation/Personal Protective Equipment:  Inhalation exposure estimates were calculated for various levels of exposure. Results are presented for "baseline," defined as a single layer of clothing consisting of a long sleeved shirt, long pants, shoes plus socks, no protective gloves, and no respirator. The rimsulfuron end-use products associated with this assessment direct mixers, loaders, applicators and other handlers to wear long-sleeved shirt and long pants; chemical-resistant gloves made of any waterproof material; and shoes plus socks.

Occupational Handler Non-Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimate Equations
The algorithms used to estimate non-cancer exposure and dose for occupational handlers can be found in Appendix A.

Summary of Occupational Handler Non-Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates
The results of the occupational handler exposure and risk assessment resulting from the proposed use of rimsulfuron are presented in Table 8.1.1. and indicate that short-term inhalation risks do not exceed HED's LOC (i.e. an MOE < 100 for short- and intermediate-term exposures) with baseline attire without PPE (i.e., no respirator). The inhalation MOEs ranged between 990 and 1,800,000; and therefore are not of concern. Because the short- and intermediate-term inhalation PODs are the same for occupational exposures, the assessment is protective of both short- and intermediate-term exposures.

HED has no data to assess exposures to pilots using open cockpits. The only data available is for exposure to pilots in enclosed cockpits. Therefore, risks to pilots are assessed using the engineering control (enclosed cockpits) and baseline attire (long-sleeve shirt, long pants, shoes, and socks); per the Agency's Worker Protection Standard stipulations for engineering controls, pilots are not required to wear protective gloves for the duration of the application. With this level of protection, there are no risk estimates of concern for applicators.

The Agency matches quantitative occupational exposure assessment with appropriate characterization of exposure potential. While HED presents quantitative risk estimates for human flaggers where appropriate, agricultural aviation has changed dramatically over the past two decades. According the 2012 National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA) survey of their membership, the use of GPS for swath guidance in agricultural aviation has grown steadily from the mid 1990's. Over the same time period, the use of human flaggers for aerial pesticide applications has decreased steadily from ~15% in the late 1990's to only 1% in the most recent (2012) NAAA survey. The Agency will continue to monitor all available information sources to best assess and characterize the exposure potential for human flaggers in agricultural aerial applications.

Table 8.1.1.  Occupational Handler Non-Cancer Exposure and Risk Estimates for Rimsulfuron.
                               Exposure Scenario
                               Crop or Target[1]
                               Level of Concern
                    Inhalation Unit Exposure (μg/lb ai)[2]
                                    Maximum
                              Application Rate[3]
                    Area Treated or Amount Handled Daily[4]
                                  Inhalation

                              Dose (mg/kg/day)[5]
                                    MOE[6]
                                 Mixer/Loader
                             Chemigation Broadcast
                              Field crop, typical
                                      100
                                     8.96
                                 0.031 lb ai/A
                                     350 A
                                    0.00123
                                     5,100
                             Groundboom Broadcast
                              Field crop, typical

                                 0.031 lb ai/A
                                     80 A
                                    0.00028
                                    22,000

                           Field crop, high-acreage

                                 0.047 lb ai/A
                                     200 A
                                    0.00105
                                     6,000
                               Aerial Broadcast
                           Field crop, high-acreage

                                 0.047 lb ai/A
                                    1,200 A
                                    0.0063
                                      990
                                  Applicator
                             Groundboom Broadcast
                              Field crop, typical
                                      100
                                     0.34
                                 0.031 lb ai/A
                                     80 A
                                   0.0000106
                                    590,000

                           Field crop, high-acreage

                                 0.047 lb ai/A
                                     200 A
                                   0.0000399
                                    160,000
                               Aerial Broadcast
                           Field crop, high-acreage

                                    0.0049
                                 0.047 lb ai/A
                                    1,200 A
                                  0.00000345
                                   1,800,000
                                    Flagger
                               Aerial Broadcast
                           Field crop, high-acreage
                                      100
                                     0.35
                                 0.047 lb ai/A
                                     350 A
                                   0.0000718
                                    87,000
                            Mixer/Loader/Applicator
Mechanically-pressurized Handgun Broadcast (foliar) or Drench/Soil/Ground-directed
                              Field crop, typical
                                      100
                                     8.68
                               0.0031 lb ai/gal
                                   1,000 gal
                                   0.000339
                                    18,000
 Field crop, typical = cranberry; Field crop, high acreage = grass grown for seed.
2	Based on the "Occupational Pesticide Handler Unit Exposure Surrogate Reference Table" (https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/occupational-pesticide-handler-exposure-data); Level of mitigation: Baseline (single layer clothing, no respirator) for all scenarios except for aerial broadcast applicators, for which only closed cockpit data are available = Engineering Controls.
3	Typical crop proposed new use for EPA Reg. No. 66222-184; high-acreage crop proposed new use for EPA Reg. No. 352-768.
4	Exposure Science Advisory Council Policy #9.1. Area treated in acres except for the Mixer/Loader/Applicator scenario, for which the amount treated/handled is in gallons.
5	Inhalation Dose = Inhalation Unit Exposure (μg/lb ai) x Conversion Factor (0.001 mg/μg) x Application Rate (lb ai/acre or gal) x Area Treated or Amount Handled Daily (A or gal/day) / BW (80 kg).
6	Inhalation MOE = Inhalation NOAEL (mg/kg/day) / Inhalation Dose (mg/kg/day). ST/IT Inhalation NOAEL = 6.25 mg/kg/day. Level of concern = 100.

8.2 Occupational Post-Application Exposure/Risk Estimates

HED uses the term post-application to describe exposures that occur when individuals are present in an environment that has been previously treated with a pesticide (also referred to as re-entry exposure). Such exposures may occur when workers enter previously treated areas to perform job functions, including activities related to crop production, such as scouting for pests or harvesting. Post-application exposure levels vary over time and depend on such things as the type of activity, the nature of the crop or target that was treated, the type of pesticide application, and the chemical's degradation properties. In addition, the timing of pesticide applications, relative to harvest activities, can greatly reduce the potential for post-application exposure.

8.2.1 Occupational Post-application Inhalation Exposure/Risk Estimates

There are multiple potential sources of post-application inhalation exposure to individuals performing post-application activities in previously treated fields. These potential sources include volatilization of pesticides and resuspension of dusts and/or particulates that contain pesticides. The Agency sought expert advice and input on issues related to volatilization of pesticides from its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) in December 2009, and received the SAP's final report on March 2, 2010 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0687-0037 ). The Agency has evaluated the SAP report and has developed a Volatilization Screening Tool and a subsequent Volatilization Screening Analysis (https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0219 ). During Registration Review, the agency will utilize this analysis to determine if data (i.e., flux studies, route-specific inhalation toxicological studies) or further analysis is required for rimsulfuron.

In addition, the Agency is continuing to evaluate the available post-application inhalation exposure data generated by the Agricultural Reentry Task Force. Given these two efforts, the Agency will continue to identify the need for and, subsequently, the way to incorporate occupational post-application inhalation exposure into the agency's risk assessments.

Although a quantitative occupational post-application inhalation exposure assessment was not performed, an inhalation exposure assessment was performed for occupational/commercial handlers. Handler exposure resulting from application of pesticides outdoors is likely to result in higher exposure than post-application exposure. Therefore, it is expected that these handler inhalation exposure estimates, which are not of concern, would be protective of most occupational post-application inhalation exposure scenarios.

8.2.2 Occupational Post-application Dermal Exposure/Risk Estimates

Occupational post-application dermal exposures are expected following the use of rimsulfuron on cranberry and grasses grown for seed. However, an occupational post-application dermal exposure and risk assessment was not conducted because an adverse systemic dermal hazard was not identified for rimsulfuron.

Restricted Entry Interval
The DuPont(TM) Matrix(R) SG Herbicide and Pruvin(R) Herbicide Dry Flowable end-use products list a REI of 4 hours. Based on the acute toxicity categories and post-application assessment for rimsulfuron, the Worker Protection Standard (WPS) Interim REI is 12-hours. REIs may be further reduced if certain criteria are met in accordance with the Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 95-3 [Reduction of WPS Interim REIs for Certain Low Risk Pesticides]. In PR Notice 95-3, there are a set of criteria listed for the active ingredient that must be met for chemicals to be eligible for a reduced REI. Upon review of the criteria for the active ingredient only, it appears that rimsulfuron is consistent with the criteria in PRN 95-3 that allow for a 4-hour REI.
HED notes that, if in the future, incident information is received by the Agency relating to the active ingredient and/or the end-use product, the eligibility for the 4-hr REI may need to be reevaluated. HED also notes that the PR Notice includes similar criteria for the end-use product. These criteria have not been evaluated by HED. Based solely on the active ingredient criteria, HED would recommend for the continued reduction of the REI for rimsulfuron. Further information about the criteria underlying the 4-hour REI determination for rimsulfuron is available in the Registration Review human health risk assessment (M. Mercado-Feliciano, D425703, 09/14/2015).

Appendix A.  Summary of Occupational and Residential Non-cancer Algorithms

Occupational Non-cancer Handler Algorithms

Potential daily exposures for occupational handlers are calculated using the following formulas:

E=UE * AR * A * 0.001 mg/ug

where:

E	=	exposure  (mg ai/day),
UE	=	unit exposure (ug ai/lb ai),
AR	=	maximum application rate according to proposed label (lb ai A or lb ai/gal), and
A	=	area treated or amount handled (e.g., A/day, gal/day).

The daily doses are calculated using the following formula:

ADD=  E * AFBW

where:

ADD	= 	average daily dose absorbed in a given scenario (mg ai/kg/day),
E	=	exposure  (mg ai/day),
AF	=	absorption factor (inhalation), and
BW 	= 	body weight (kg).

Margin of Exposure:  Non-cancer risk estimates for each application handler scenario are calculated using a Margin of Exposure (MOE), which is a ratio of the toxicological endpoint to the daily dose of concern.  The daily inhalation dose received by occupational handlers are compared to the appropriate POD (i.e., NOAEL) to assess the risk to occupational handlers for each exposure route.  All MOE values are calculated using the following formula:

MOE= PODADD

where:

MOE	=	margin of exposure: value used by HED to represent risk estimates (unitless),
POD	=	point of departure (mg/kg/day), and
ADD	=	average daily dose absorbed in a given scenario (mg ai/kg/day).


[Federal Register: September 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 54680-54681]
[DOCID:fr08se10-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62795; File No. SR-DTC-2010-11]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Rules Relating to Authority To Suspend or Waive DTC Rules and
Procedures

August 30, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on August 23, 2010, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described
in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily
by DTC.\2\ DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) thereunder so that the proposed
rule change was effective upon filing with the Commission.\3\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit
5 to DTC's filing and is available at http://www.dtcc.com/
downloands/legal/rule_filings/2010/dtc/2010-11.pdf.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change will amend DTC rules to provide that any
officer having a rank of Managing Director or higher is authorized to
suspend or waive DTC rules and procedures.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC 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. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by the DTC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change amends Rule 18 of the DTC's Rules, Bylaws
and Organization Certificate of The Depository Trust Company \5\
(``Rules'') to state that the Rules and procedures of DTC may be
suspended or waived by any officer having a rank of Managing Director
or higher. Prior to the proposed amendment, Rule 18 provided such
authority to officers having a rank of Vice President or higher.\6\
This proposed rule change also harmonizes DTC's rules with those of the
Fixed Income Clearing Corporation's (``FICC'') Government Securities
Division and Mortgage-Backed Securities Division as well as those of
the National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC'') as the rules
relate to the authority to suspend or waive rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ DTC's rules are available at http://www.dtcc.com/legal/
rules_proc/dtc_rules.pdf.
    \6\ Managing Director is a more senior level of officer than
that of Vice President.
    \7\ On August 20, 2010, FICC filed and on August 23, 2010, NSCC
filed similar rule changes. Securities Exchange Act Release No.
62796 (August 30, 2010) [SR-FICC-2010-06] and 62794 (August 30,
2010) [File No. SR-NSCC-2010-08] respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \8\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to DTC because the proposed
rule will require a more senior level of management to authorize a
suspension or waiver of DTC rules under the proposed rule change
thereby ensuring more equitable compliance with DTC's rules and
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

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

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

    No written comments relating to the proposed rule change have been
solicited or received. DTC will notify the Commission of any written
comments received by DTC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(3) \10\
thereunder because it is concerned solely with the administration of
DTC. At any time within sixty days of the filing of such rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-DTC-2010-11 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2010-11. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule

change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Section, 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
filings also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of DTC and on DTC's Web site, http://www.dtcc.com. 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-DTC-2010-11 and should be
submitted on or before September 29, 2010.

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22350 Filed 9-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 77 (Monday, April 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18943-18945]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08163]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80478; File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to
Fees for Use on Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.

April 18, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on April 12, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member 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 proposed rule change 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\ 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 filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``BZX Equities'') to: (i) Add new tiers
under footnotes 1 and 4; and (ii) eliminate tier 4 under footnote 3.
Add Volume Tiers Under Footnote 1
    The Exchange currently offers nine Add Volume Tiers under footnote
1, which provide an enhanced rebate of $0.0025 to $0.0032 per share for
qualifying orders which yield fee codes B, V, or Y.\6\ The Exchange now
proposes to add two additional tiers which will provide an enhanced
rebate per share for qualifying orders which yield fee code
HA.7 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fee codes B, V, and Y are appended to displayed orders that
add liquidity in tape B, A, or C, respectively. See the Exchange's
fee schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
    \7\ Fee code HA is appended to non-displayed orders which add
liquidity. Id.
    \8\ The Exchange proposes to add additional labels to the table
in footnote 1 to further clarify which tiers apply to orders
yielding the differentiating fee codes. The Exchange also proposes
to append footnote 1 to fee code HA in connection with this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Under the proposed Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1, a
Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0020 per share where they
add an ADV greater than or equal to 0.09% of the TCV, as Non-Displayed
orders that yield fee codes HA or HI.
     Under the proposed Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 2, a
Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0025 per share where they
add an ADV greater than or equal to 0.18% of the TCV, as Non-Displayed
orders that yield fee codes HA or HI.
Single MPID Investor Tier Under Footnote 4
    The Exchange currently offers one Single MPID Investor Tier under
footnote 4, which provides an enhanced rebate of $0.0031 per share for
qualifying orders which yield fee codes B, V, or Y. The distinction
between the existing tier under footnote 4 and other tiers offered by
the Exchange, is that the volume measured to determine whether a Member
qualifies is performed on an MPID by MPID basis. The Exchange now
proposes to add an additional single MPID tier which will provide an
enhanced rebate per share for qualifying orders which yield fee codes
B, V, or Y. Under the proposed Step-Up Add Tier under footnote 4, a
Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.0027 per share where the
MPID has a Step-Up ADAV from November 2016, greater than or equal to
500,000 shares.
Eliminate Tier 4 Under Footnote 3
    The Exchange currently offers five Cross-Asset Step-Up Tiers under
footnote 3, which provide an enhanced rebate per contract ranging from
$0.0027 to $0.0032 per share for qualifying orders. Tiers 1 through 4
apply to orders which yield fee codes B, V, or Y. Tier 5 applies to
orders which yield fee codes BB, N, or W.\9\ The Exchange now proposes
to eliminate Tier 4 under footnote 3, which provides a rebate of
$0.0032 per share for Members that have an Options Step-Up Add TCV in
Customer orders from October 2016 baseline greater than or equal to
0.35%.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Fee codes BB, N, and W are appended to orders that remove
liquidity in tape B, C, or A, respectively. See the Exchange's fee
schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/.
    \10\ In connection with the elimination of Tier 4, the Exchange
proposes that Tier 5 be renamed to Tier 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement these amendments to its fee
schedule immediately.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange initially filed the proposed amendments to its
fee schedule on March 31, 2017 (SR-BatsBZX-2017-21). On April 12,
2017, the Exchange withdrew SR-BatsBZX-2017-21 and then subsequently
submitted this filing (SR-BatsBZX-2017-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\12\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\13\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide

for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among its Members and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange
also notes that it operates in a highly-competitive market in which
market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or
incentives to be insufficient. The proposed rule changes reflect a
competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market
participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addition of New Volume Tiers
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the tiered
pricing structure are reasonable, fair and equitable, and non-
discriminatory. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in
which market participants may readily send order flow to many competing
venues if they deem fees at the Exchange to be excessive or incentives
provided to be insufficient. The proposed structure remains intended to
attract order flow to the Exchange by offering market participants a
competitive pricing structure. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to offer and incrementally modify incentives intended to help to
contribute to the growth of the Exchange.
    Volume-based pricing such as that proposed herein have been widely
adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are equitable because
they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional
benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to: (i) The value to
an exchange's market quality; (ii) associated higher levels of market
activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provisions and/or growth
patterns; and (iii) introduction of higher volumes of orders into the
price and volume discovery processes.
    Add Volume Tiers. The proposed additions of two Non-Displayed Add
Volume Tiers reinforces the purpose of the Add Volume Tier by
incentivizing Members to send Non-Displayed orders to the Exchange.
Thus, the Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to the
tiered pricing structure under footnote 1 is a reasonable, equitable,
and not an unfairly discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates
because they will provide Members with an incentive to reach certain
thresholds on the Exchange by contributing a meaningful amount of order
flow and because such an incentive is open to all Members on an equal
basis.
    Single MPID Investor Tier. The proposed addition of a Single MPID
Step-Up Add Tier reinforces the purpose of the Single MPID Investor
Tier by incentivizing Members to send higher level of orders to the
Exchange. By applying the tier on a single MPID rather than across a
Member's entire trading activity, the Exchange is also allowing more
Members to potentially receive the enhanced rebates for their trading
activity related to liquidity provision. Thus, the Exchange believes
that the proposed modification to the tiered pricing structure under
footnote 4 is a reasonable, equitable, and not an unfairly
discriminatory allocation of fees and rebates because it will provide
Members with an incentive to reach certain thresholds on the Exchange
by contributing a meaningful amount of order flow. As is true for the
Add Volume Tiers described above, the proposed tier under footnote 4 is
available to all Members.
Elimination of Unused Tiers
    The Exchange believes that the proposed modifications to eliminate
Tier 4 under footnote 3 is reasonable, fair, and equitable because the
current tier was not providing the desired result of incentivizing
Members to increase their participation in BZX Equities and in the
Exchange's equity options platform (``BZX Options''). Therefore,
eliminating this tier will have a negligible effect on order flow and
market behavior. The Exchange believes the proposed change is not
unfairly discriminatory because it will apply equally to all
participants.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that any of the proposed change to the Exchange's tiered pricing
structure burden competition, but instead, that they enhance
competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX
by modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and
incentivize participants to increase their participation on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or
excessive. The proposed changes are generally intended to enhance the
rebates for liquidity added to the Exchange, which is intended to draw
additional liquidity to the Exchange, and to eliminate a rebate that
has not achieved its desired result. The Exchange does not believe the
proposed amendments would burden intramarket competition as they would
be available to all Members uniformly.

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\15\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent

amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of
the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File No. SR-BatsBZX-2017-22, and should be submitted on or before May
15, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-08163 Filed 4-21-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P