[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42136-42137]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15066]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 282

[EPA-R01-UST-2022-0204; FRL 9581-01-R1]

Vermont: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program
Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA
or Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the State of Vermont's Underground Storage Tank
(UST) program submitted by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (VT DEC). This action is based on the EPA's determination
that these revisions satisfy all requirements needed for program
approval. This action also proposes to codify EPA's approval of
Vermont's State program and incorporate by reference those provisions
of the State regulations that we have determined meet the requirements
for approval. The provisions will be subject to EPA's inspection and
enforcement authorities under sections 9005 and 9006 of RCRA Subtitle I
and other applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

DATES: Send written comments by August 15, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit any comments, identified by EPA-R01-UST-2022-0204, by
one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-UST-
2022-0204. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be available online at
https://www.regulations.gov including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov, or email. The Federal https://www.regulations.gov
website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA
without going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties, and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. You can view and copy the documents that form
the basis for this codification and associated publicly available
materials either through www.regulations.gov or at the EPA Region 1
Office, 5 Post Office Square, 1st floor, Boston, MA 02109-3912. The
facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-19. We
recommend that you call Joan Coyle, RCRA Waste Management, UST, and
Pesticides

Section, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, before visiting the Region 1 office.
Interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least two weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan Coyle, RCRA Waste Management,
UST, and Pesticides Section, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Boston, MA 02109-3912;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct
final rule published in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this
issue of the Federal Register.

    Authority: This rulemaking is issued under the authority of
Sections 2002(a), 9004, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6991c, 6991d, and 6991e.

    Dated: June 30, 2022.
David W. Cash,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2022-15066 Filed 7-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 144 (Friday, July 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35115-35120]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15744]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0825; FRL-9960-37]

Topramezone; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
topramezone in or on sugarcane, cane. BASF Corporation requested this
tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective July 28, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 26, 2017,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0825, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

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

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0825 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
September 26, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0825, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of June 22, 2016 (81 FR 40594) (FRL-9947-
32), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
5F8421) by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, P.O. Box 13528, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.612 be
amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the herbicide
topramezone, [3-(4,5-dihydro-isoxazol-3-yl)-4-methylsulfonyl-2-
methylphenyl](5-hydroxyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazol-4-yl)methanone, in or on
sugarcane, cane at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). That document
referenced a summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the
registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure

of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in
establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue . . .''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of, and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for topramezone including exposure
resulting from the tolerance established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with topramezone follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.
    Topramezone inhibits the enzyme 4-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase
(HPPD), which is involved in the catabolism of the amino acid tyrosine.
HPPD-inhibition causes blood levels of tyrosine to rise (tyrosinemia),
resulting in ocular, liver, kidney, and developmental effects in
laboratory animals.
    Similar to other HPPD inhibiting chemicals, the rat was the most
sensitive species and males were found to be more sensitive than
females (in rats and dogs). In rat subchronic and chronic oral studies,
topramezone produced ocular (corneal vascularization, opacity, and
keratitis) and kidney (microscopic findings and increased organ
weights) effects, which are consistent with the mammalian toxicity
profile for HPPD inhibitors caused by high tyrosine levels in the
blood. Histopathological findings in the thyroid were frequently
observed in rats and dogs following topramezone exposure. Thyroid
tumors via a non-linear mode of action involving thyroid hormone
disruption were seen in the rat; however, topramezone is classified as
``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at doses that do not alter
rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.'' Additional histopathological
findings were seen in the pancreas of rats and the urinary bladder in
dogs. Body weight decrements were also noted in all species, including
the mouse, which did not exhibit any other adverse effects in the
database.
    There was evidence of increased prenatal susceptibility following
in utero exposure to topramezone in the developmental toxicity studies
in rats and rabbits, with fetal skeletal variation and abnormalities
observed in both species that were consistent with those reported in
the toxicological databases for other HPPD inhibiting chemicals and
typically seen in the absence of maternal toxicity or less severe
maternal adverse effects. In the mouse developmental toxicity study,
elevated tyrosine blood levels were noted in maternal animals; however,
there were no developmental effects observed. There was evidence for
increased qualitative offspring susceptibility in the rat developmental
neurotoxicity study, where neurobehavioral and neuropathological
changes were observed in the presence of limited maternal toxicity
(corneal opacity). There was no evidence of increased pre- or postnatal
susceptibility in the rat reproduction toxicity study.
    While neurobehavioral and neuropathological offspring effects were
observed in the developmental neurotoxicity study, which are indicators
of potential neurotoxicity, no neurotoxic effects were observed in the
acute neurotoxicity study up to the limit dose or the subchronic
neurotoxicity study, where systemic effects were consistent with the
rest of the toxicological database.
    Topramezone is classified as having low acute toxicity (Toxicity
Category III or IV) via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes). It
was found to be a slight eye and dermal irritant, but it was not found
to be a dermal sensitizer.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by topramezone as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in document Topramezone: Human Health Risk
Assessment for New Use on Sugarcane in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2015-0825.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.
    A summary of the toxicological endpoints for topramezone used for
human risk assessment is shown in the Table of this unit.

   Table--Summary of Toxicological Doses and Endpoints for Topramezone for Use in Human Health Risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Point of departure
        Exposure/Scenario            and  uncertainty/    RfD, PAD, LOC for     Study and toxicological effects
                                      safety  factors      risk Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute dietary (Females 13-49       NOAEL = 0.5 mg/kg/    aRfD = 0.005 mg/kg/  Rabbit Developmental Toxicity
 years old).                        day.                  day.                 Study
                                   UFA = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.005 mg/kg/  Developmental LOAEL = 5 mg/kg/day
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 based on alterations in skeletal
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        ossification sites and increased
                                                                               number of pairs of ribs.

Acute dietary (General population  LOAEL = 8 mg/kg/day.  aRfD = 0.08 mg/kg/   Rat Developmental Neurotoxicity
 including infants and children,   UFA = 10x...........   day.                 Study
 excluding females 13-49 years     UFH = 10x...........  aPAD = 0.008 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 8 mg/kg/day based on
 old).                             FQPA SF/UFL = 10x...   day.                 decreased maximum auditory
                                                                               startle reflex response,
                                                                               decreased brain weights, and
                                                                               changes in brain morphology.
Chronic dietary (All populations)  NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/    cRfD = 0.004 mg/kg/  Rat Chronic Toxicity/
                                    day.                  day.                 Carcinogenicity Study
                                   UFA = 10x...........  cPAD = 0.004 mg/kg/  LOAEL = 3.6 mg/kg/day based on
                                   UFH = 10x...........   day.                 increased incidences of corneal
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        opacity, decreased body weight
                                                                               and body-weight gains in males
                                                                               and histopathological evaluations
                                                                               in the eyes, thyroid, and
                                                                               pancreas of both sexes.
Incidental oral short-term (1 to   NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = <100.  Rat Two-Generation Reproduction
 30 days) and intermediate (1-6     day.                                       Study
 months) term.                     UFA = 10x...........                       Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 4.2 mg/
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        kg/day based on decreased body
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        weight, increased thyroid and
                                                                               kidney weights, and microscopic
                                                                               findings in eyes, kidney, and
                                                                               thyroid of both sexes (parental);
                                                                               and decreases in body weights in
                                                                               the F2 generation and increased
                                                                               time to preputial separation in
                                                                               the F1 male (offspring).
Dermal short-term (1 to 30 days)   NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = <100.  Rat Two-Generation Reproduction
 and intermediate (1-6 months)      day (dermal                                Study in Rats]
 term.                              absorption rate =                         Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 4.2 mg/
                                    2.6%).                                     kg/day based on decreased body
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        weight, increased thyroid and
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        kidney weights, and microscopic
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        findings in eyes, kidney, and
                                                                               thyroid of both sexes (parental);
                                                                               and decreases in body weights in
                                                                               the F2 generation and increased
                                                                               time to preputial separation in
                                                                               the F1 male (offspring).
Inhalation short-term (1 to 30     NOAEL = 0.4 mg/kg/    LOC for MOE = <100.  Rat Two-Generation Reproduction
 days) and intermediate (1-6        day (inhalation                            Study in Rats]
 month) term.                       assumed equivalent                        Parental/Offspring LOAEL = 4.2 mg/
                                    to oral).                                  kg/day based on decreased body
                                   UFA = 10x...........                        weight, increased thyroid and
                                   UFH = 10x...........                        kidney weights, and microscopic
                                   FQPA SF = 1x........                        findings in eyes, kidney, and
                                                                               thyroid of both sexes (parental);
                                                                               and decreases in body weights in
                                                                               the F2 generation and increased
                                                                               time to preputial separation in
                                                                               the F1 male (offspring).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer (Oral, dermal, inhalation)  In accordance with the 2005 EPA Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk assessment,
                                    topramezone was classified as ``not likely to be carcinogenic to humans at
                                    doses that do not alter rat thyroid hormone homeostasis.'' EPA has
                                    determined that the thyroid tumors arise through a non-linear mode of action
                                    and the cRfD of 0.004 mg/kg/day, which is derived from the NOAEL of 0.4 mg/
                                    kg/day from the rat chronic/carcinogenicity study, is not expected to alter
                                    thyroid hormone homeostasis nor result in thyroid tumor formation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FQPA SF = Food Quality Protection Act Safety Factor. LOAEL = lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. LOC = level
  of concern. mg/kg/day = milligram/kilogram/day. MOE = margin of exposure. NOAEL = no-observed-adverse-effect-
  level. PAD = population adjusted dose (a = acute, c = chronic). RfD = reference dose (a = acute, c = chronic).
  UF = uncertainty factor. UFA = extrapolation from animal to human (interspecies). UFH = potential variation in
  sensitivity among members of the human population (intraspecies). UFL = use of a LOAEL to extrapolate a NOAEL.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to topramezone, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-
for tolerance as well as all existing topramezone tolerances in 40 CFR
180.612. EPA assessed dietary exposure from topramezone in food as
follows:
    i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk
assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological
study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring
as a result of a one-day or single exposure. Such effects were
identified for topramezone. In estimating acute dietary exposure, EPA
used food consumption information from the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 2003-2008 National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in
food, EPA used tolerance levels and 100 percent crop treated (PCT) for
the acute dietary exposure assessment.
    ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure
assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA 2003-2008
NHANES/WWEIA. As to residue levels in food, EPA used tolerance levels
and 100 PCT for the chronic dietary exposure assessment.
    iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has
concluded that topramezone does not pose a cancer risk to humans.
Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing
cancer risk is unnecessary.
    iv. Anticipated residue and Percent crop treated (PCT) information.
EPA did not use anticipated residue and/or PCT information in the
dietary assessment for topramezone. Tolerance level residues and/or 100
PCT were assumed for all food commodities.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used the
highest drinking water concentration expected to result from the
currently-registered use of topramezone for direct, aquatic
applications. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models
used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide. For acute and chronic dietary
risk assessments, the water concentration value of 45 ppb was used to
assess the contribution to drinking water, based on the maximum
allowable topramezone concentration in water bodies with potable water
intakes from direct aquatic use.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control,
termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets).
    Topramezone is currently registered for turf and golf course uses
that could result in residential exposures. Topramezone is also
currently registered for use in direct aquatic applications that could
result in exposure during recreational swimming activities. The
following residential exposure scenarios were used for assessing
aggregate exposures: Short-

term dermal post-application exposure resulting from the physical
activities on turf for adults, short-term dermal and incidental oral
(hand-to-mouth) post-application exposures resulting from the physical
activities on turf for children 1 < 2 years, and intermediate-term
incidental oral exposure resulting from soil ingestion from turf use
for children 1 < 2 years. These post-application exposure estimates
from the turf use are protective of post-application exposure for older
children more likely to engage in recreational swimming activities.
Further information regarding EPA standard assumptions and generic
inputs for residential exposures may be found at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/standard-operating-procedures-residential-pesticide.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found topramezone to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and topramezone does not appear to
produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
topramezone does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality
Protection Act Safety Factor (FQPA SF). In applying this provision, EPA
either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional
safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of
a different factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. There was evidence of
increased quantitative prenatal susceptibility following in utero
exposures to rats and rabbits. Fetal skeletal variations and
abnormalities were observed in all of the rat and rabbit developmental
studies, typically in the absence of maternal toxicity or in the
presence of less severe maternal effects. Increased qualitative
susceptibility was also observed in the developmental neurotoxicity
study where offspring neurobehavioral and neuropathological changes
were observed in the presence of limited maternal toxicity (corneal
opacity). Concern is low since the effects are well-characterized and
endpoints selected for risk assessment are protective of all observed
offspring effects. There was no evidence of increased offspring
sensitivity in the two-generation rat reproduction toxicity study.
    3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
FQPA SF were reduced to 1X for all exposure scenarios except for acute
dietary exposure. The FQPA SF of 10X was retained for acute dietary
exposure to account for the extrapolation of a NOAEL from a LOAEL. This
decision is based on the following findings:
    i. The toxicity database for topramezone is adequate to assess the
risk of aggregate exposure to topramezone. While a subchronic
inhalation study is not available for topramezone, EPA concluded, using
a weight-of-evidence approach, that this study is not required at this
time.
    ii. Although there was evidence of potential neurotoxicity in the
developmental neurotoxicity study (e.g., changes in neurobehavioral and
neuropathological observations in offspring), there was no additional
evidence of neurotoxicity in the rest of the toxicological database and
the selected endpoints are protective of the observed effect up to the
limit dose.
    iii. Although there was evidence of increased prenatal
susceptibility as discussed in Unit III.D.2., there are clear NOAELs
associated with those effects, and the Agency's selected points of
departure are protective of those effects. Therefore, there is no need
to retain the FQPA 10X SF to adequately protect infants and children
from these effects.
    iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure
databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based
on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. The maximum allowable
concentration in potable water intakes was used to assess exposure to
topramezone in drinking water. EPA used similarly conservative
assumptions to assess post-application exposure of children as well as
incidental oral exposure of toddlers. These assessments will not
underestimate the exposure and risks posed by topramezone.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    1. Acute risk. Using the exposure assumptions discussed in this
unit for acute exposure, the acute dietary exposure from food and water
to topramezone will occupy 98% of the aPAD for all infants less than 1
year old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure, and 50%
of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
topramezone from food and water will utilize 62% of the cPAD for all
infants less than 1-year-old, the population group receiving the
greatest exposure.
    3. Short-term risk. Short-term aggregate exposure takes into
account short-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food
and water (considered to be a background exposure level). Topramezone
is currently registered for residential turf uses that could result in
short-term residential exposure, and the Agency has determined that it
is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through food and water
with short-term residential exposures to topramezone. Using the
exposure assumptions described in this unit for short-term exposures,
EPA has concluded the combined short-term food, water, and residential
exposures result in aggregate MOEs of 220 for adults and 120 for
children 1-2 years old (a subgroup predicted to have the highest
residential and aggregate exposure). Because EPA's level of concern for
topramezone is a MOE of

100 or below, these MOEs are not of concern.
    4. Intermediate-term risk. Intermediate-term aggregate exposure
takes into account intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic
exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure
level). Topramezone is currently registered for turf uses that could
result in intermediate-term residential exposure, and the Agency has
determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic exposure through
food and water with intermediate-term residential exposures to
topramezone for children that are 1-2 years old that may ingest soil on
treated turf. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for
intermediate-term exposures, EPA has concluded that the combined
intermediate-term food, water, and residential exposures result in an
aggregate MOE of 270 for children 1-2 years old. Because EPA's level of
concern for topramezone is a MOE of 100 or below, this MOE is not of
concern.
    5. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. EPA has concluded
that topramezone does not pose a cancer risk at exposure levels that do
not alter thyroid hormone homeostasis. The chronic aggregate
assessment, which utilized a cRfD that is protective of those effects
did not indicate a chronic risk above EPA's level of concern;
therefore, topramezone is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.
    6. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to topramezone residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (liquid chromatography with tandem
mass-spectrometry detection (LC/MS/MS), BASF method D0007) is available
to enforce the tolerance expression for sugarcane.

B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for topramezone in or on
sugarcane.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of topramezone,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on the following
commodity. Compliance with the following tolerance levels is to be
determined by measuring only topramezone ([3-(4,5-dihydro-3-
isoxazolyl)-2-methyl-4-(methylsulfonyl)phenyl](5-hydroxy-1-methyl-1H-
pyrazol-4-yl)methanone) in or on the following commodity: Sugarcane,
cane at 0.01 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: May 15, 2017.
Michael L. Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.612, add alphabetically ``Sugarcane, cane'' in the
table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Sec.  180.612  Topramezone; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Sugarcane, cane.............................................        0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2017-15744 Filed 7-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73853-73854]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13005-003]

Oliver Hydro LLC; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental
Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and
Conditions, and Prescriptions

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Original Major License.
    b. Project No.: 13005-003.
    c. Date filed: December 14, 2011.
    d. Applicant: Oliver Hydro LLC.
    e. Name of Project: William Bacon Oliver Lock and Dam Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: At the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) William
Bacon Oliver Lock and Dam on the Black Warrior River, in Tuscaloosa
County, Alabama. The project would occupy 8.7 acres of United States
lands administered by the Corps' Mobile District.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Vincent A. Lamarra, Symbiotics LLC, 975 South
State Highway, Logan, UT 84321;<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, recommendations, terms and
conditions, and prescriptions: 60 days from the issuance date of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions
using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-13005-003.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application has been accepted and is now ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The proposed project would utilize the Corps' existing William
Bacon Oliver Lock and Dam, and would consist of the following new
facilities: (1) A forebay; (2) an intake structure; (3) a powerhouse
containing two generating units with a total capacity of 11.72
megawatts (MW); (4) a 150-foot-long, 68-foot-wide tailrace; (5) a
proposed 1.7-mile-long, 25 kilovolt (kV) transmission line; (6) a
switchyard; and (7) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would
have an average annual generation of 42.6 GWh, and operate in a run-of-
river mode utilizing surplus water from the William Bacon Oliver Lock
and Dam, as directed by the Corps.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item h above.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``REPLY COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``TERMS AND
CONDITIONS,'' or ``PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be
accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service
list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in

accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Public notice of the filing of the initial development
application, which has already been given, established the due date for
filing competing applications or notices of intent. Under the
Commission's regulations, any competing development application must be
filed in response to and in compliance with public notice of the
initial development application. No competing applications or notices
of intent may be filed in response to this notice.
    o. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of this notice: (1) A copy of the water quality
certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including
proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request;
or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.

    Dated: December 2, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-29328 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43698-43700]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16965]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92561; File No. SR-FINRA-2021-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a
Supplemental Liquidity Schedule, and Instructions Thereto, Pursuant to
FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS Information)

August 4, 2021.

I. Introduction

    On April 30, 2021, the Financial industry Regulatory Authority
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act (``Exchange Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to adopt a Supplemental Liquidity Schedule, and
Instructions thereto, pursuant to FINRA Rule 4524 (Supplemental FOCUS
Information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal
Register on May 18, 2021.\3\ The comment period closed on June 8, 2021.
The Commission received one comment letter in response to the
Notice.\4\ On June 22, 2021, FINRA extended the time period in which
the Commission must approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the
proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove the proposed rule change to August 16, 2021. On July 7,
2021, FINRA responded to the comment letter received in response to the
Notice.\5\ For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is approving
the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 91876 (May 12, 2021), 86 FR
27005 (May 18, 2021) (File No. SR-FINRA-2021-009) (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Letter from Kevin Zambrowicz, Managing Director &
Associate General Counsel, the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated June 8, 2021 (``SIFMA
Letter'').
    \5\ See Letter from Adam Arkel, Associate General Counsel,
Office of General Counsel, FINRA, to Vanessa Countryman, Secretary,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, dated July 7, 2021 (``FINRA
Letter''). The FINRA Letter is available on FINRA's website at
https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/sr-finra-2021-009-response-to-comments.pdf, on the Commission's website at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-finra-2021-009/srfinra2021009.htm, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The subsequent description of the proposed rule change is
substantially excerpted from FINRA's description in the Notice. See
Notice, 86 FR at 27005-06.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA Rule 4524 provides in part that FINRA may require certain
members to file supplements to the Financial and Operational Combined
Uniform Single Report (``FOCUS Report''), which is filed pursuant to
Rule 17a-5 under the Exchange Act \7\ and FINRA Rule 2010. These
supplements may include such additional financial or operational
schedules or reports as FINRA may deem necessary or appropriate for the
protection of investors or in the public interest. FINRA Rule 4524
further requires FINRA to file a proposed schedule or report with the
Commission pursuant to section 19(b) of the Exchange Act. Pursuant to
FINRA Rule 4524, FINRA proposed to adopt a Supplemental Liquidity
Schedule (``SLS''), and Instructions thereto.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.17a-5 (``Rule 17a-5''). Paragraph (a) of Rule
17a-5 requires a broker-dealer to file a version of the FOCUS
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A FINRA member that would be required to file the Form SLS would
report detailed information relating to the member's:

     Reverse repurchase and repurchase agreements;
     securities borrowed and securities loaned;
     non-cash reverse repurchase and securities borrowed
transactions;
     non-cash repurchase and securities loaned transactions;
     bank loan and other committed and uncommitted credit
facilities;
     total available collateral in the member's custody;
     margin and non-purpose loans;
     collateral securing margin loans;
     deposits at clearing organizations; and
     cash and securities received and delivered on derivative
transactions not cleared through a central clearing counterparty
(``CCP'').
    According to FINRA, the SLS is tailored to apply only to members
with the largest customer and counterparty exposures. Unless otherwise
permitted by FINRA in writing, each carrying member with $25 million or
more in free credit balances, as defined under Exchange Act Rule 15c3-
3(a)(8),\8\ and each member whose aggregate amount outstanding under
repurchase agreements, securities loan contracts and bank loans is
equal to or greater than $1 billion, as reported on the member's most
recently filed FOCUS report, would be required to file the SLS. The SLS
would be required to be completed as of the last business day of each
month and filed within 24 business days after the end of the month. A
member would not need to file the SLS for any period where the member
does not meet the $25 million or $1 billion thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.15c3-3 (``Rule 15c3-3'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comment Summary

    As noted above, the Commission received one comment letter in
response to the Notice.\9\ In its comment letter, SIFMA asked that the
implementation timing of the SLS be aligned with the implementation of
the Federal Reserve Board's ``6G'' reporting framework with respect to
the FR 2052a reports required to be filed by FINRA member firms that
have bank holding company affiliates,\10\ or that additional time be
allotted for the implementation of the SLS.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See supra note 4.
    \10\ According to SIFMA, member firms are expected to be working
on the implementation of the Federal Reserve 6G reporting through
the end of 2022.
    \11\ See SIFMA Letter at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, noting that some of the reporting requirements for
the SLS may be duplicative of information that must be reported to the
Federal Reserve Board on FR 2052a reports, SIFMA has asked that the SLS
contain an ``overlay'' that is mapped to the 5G/6G reporting frameworks
of the Federal Reserve Board. According to SIFMA, this would have the
effect of consolidating certain reporting categories where the
respective categories and definitions align for the FINRA and the
Federal Reserve Board reports, which would in turn streamline the
reporting process for firms that are required to file with both FINRA
and the Federal Reserve Board. Firms that are not required to file with
both FINRA and the Federal Reserve Board would not be impacted,
according to SIFMA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See SIFMA Letter at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response, FINRA reiterated that the proposed SLS is designed to
improve FINRA's ability to monitor for events that signal an adverse
change in the liquidity risk of broker-dealers that that file the
schedule. FINRA also noted the extensive prior outreach and discussions
that FINRA conducted regarding the potential burdens on broker-dealers
that are subsidiaries of bank holding companies. According to FINRA,
this consultation resulted in the alignment of categories in the
proposed SLS with reporting required in the Federal Reserve Board's
Complex Institution Liquidity Monitoring Report (referred to as ``FR
2052a'').\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See FINRA Letter at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA also stated the SLS serves an important regulatory purpose
because access to the information that would be reported on the SLS is
important for FINRA to efficiently monitor on an ongoing basis the
liquidity profile of its members. FINRA stated that the information
would facilitate FINRA's efforts to understand and respond to firms
that may appear similar based on their balance sheets, but in fact have
different liquidity risk profiles which could negatively the ability to
fund operations during periods of market stress or other stress events.
Absent the reporting set forth in the SLS, FINRA noted that it would
need to request such information on a firm-by-firm basis as the need
arises, which could, according to FINRA, result in similar or
potentially larger costs for some firms.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While acknowledging that some members that would be subject to the
proposed SLS could face potential burdens with respect to reporting
requirements from other regulators, FINRA stated that it would revisit
the reporting categories in the proposed SLS as appropriate with
respect to potential alignments of such categories with other reporting
requirements, including the FR 2052a, depending on how they evolve in
the future. Consequently, FINRA stated that it believes it would not be
appropriate to delay implementation of the proposed SLS.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, FINRA stated that it believes that the proposed timeframe
for implementation of the proposed SLS set forward in the Notice
affords members sufficient time to prepare.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review of the proposed rule change, the comment
letter, and FINRA's response to the comment letter, the Commission
finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the
Exchange Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are
applicable to a national securities association.\17\ Specifically, the
Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act,\18\ which requires, among other
things, that the Commission determine any FINRA rule to be designed to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ In approving this rule change, the Commission has
considered the rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the proposed SLS, which will require
certain FINRA members, subject to the thresholds described above, to
provide detailed information regarding various aspects of the member's
liquidity profile will enable more effective monitoring of the
liquidity risk of FINRA members by the Commission and FINRA. The
Commission believes that regular and ongoing access to such information
is important for the purpose of understanding the liquidity risks that
member firms face, as well as differences in liquidity risks among
firms that otherwise may appear to be similar based on similar
characteristics in the firms' balance sheets. By enabling more
effective monitoring of liquidity risk, the Commission believes that
the information obtained through the SLS will protect investors and the
public interest by providing FINRA and the Commission with information
needed to better anticipate and respond to the risks that FINRA member
firms may face during market or other stress events that could
jeopardize their ability to fund their operations. FINRA estimates that
between 85 and 100 broker-dealers will be required to file Form SLS,
the universe of broker-dealers carrying customer accounts with at least
$25 million in free credit balances or with

a minimum of $1 billion in repurchase agreements, bank loans or
securities loans outstanding. Therefore, the Commission believes that
the proposed Form SLS is reasonably designed to apply only to those
broker-dealers that have the highest potential to adversely affect
investors and the public interest in a liquidity stress event.
    Finally, the Commission believes that FINRA has reasonably
addressed the concerns raised by SIFMA's comment letter. Specifically,
the Commission agrees that the SLS would serve an important regulatory
purpose by providing FINRA and the Commission with information useful
in evaluating a member firm's liquidity risk profile. While the
Commission recognizes that there is the potential for burdens on
certain member firms that are subject to the regulatory reporting
requirements of other regulators, the Commission believes that the
important regulatory purpose served by the SLS justifies the potential
burdens. The Commission believes that absent the SLS, FINRA and the
Commission would be required to request the information supplied in the
SLS repeatedly and on a firm-by-firm basis in order to obtain the
information necessary to monitor member firms for potential liquidity
concerns. Such an approach would not only create regulatory
inefficiency, but could also result in similar or potentially larger
costs for firms, as FINRA noted.
    Moreover, in light of the prior outreach that FINRA has conducted
including publishing an earlier version of SLS in January 2018 and
revising it in response to feedback from industry participants,\19\ the
Commission believes that FINRA's proposed approach to revisit the
reporting categories in the SLS with a view to potential alignments of
such categories with other reporting requirements depending on how they
evolve would have the effect of further minimizing the regulatory
burdens on member firms subject to the SLS. Consequently, the
Commission believes that FINRA has appropriately addressed concerns
raised in the comment letter concerning reducing the reporting costs
imposed by the SLS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See Regulatory Notice 18-02 (January 2018) (Liquidity
Reporting and Notification). See also Notice, 86 FR at 27006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Commission agrees with FINRA that it is not
appropriate to delay implementation of the SLS beyond the timeframe set
forth in the Notice. Because FINRA previously published a version of
the SLS in 2018, and will announce an effective date that will be 180
days following the publication of a Regulatory Notice published no
later than 30 days after Commission approval, the Commission believes
that member firms will have sufficient time to prepare to implement the
SLS. Furthermore, in light of recent events connected to market
volatility, which were discussed in the Notice,\20\ the Commission
believes that further delaying implementation of the SLS will undermine
the regulatory interest that the Commission and FINRA have in
monitoring member firms' liquidity risk profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Notice, 86 FR at 27005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2021-009) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-16965 Filed 8-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 228)]
[Notices]
[Page 71711-71713]
[DOCID:fr25no08-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58975; File No. SR-NYSE-2008-121]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Establish Fees for Transactions in Stocks With a Price of Less than
$1.00 per Share

November 19, 2008.
    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 November 14, 2008, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule changes as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule changes from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing to establish a fee for all transactions
in stocks that have a trading price below $1.00 equal to the lesser of
(i) .3% of the aggregate transaction value and (ii) the fee that would
have applied if the stock did not have a trading price below $1.00.
Transactions subject to this fee limitation will include orders routed
to other markets, but not transactions that would not otherwise be
subject to a transaction fee. With respect to transactions in stocks
with a trading price below $1.00, Designated Market Makers (``DMMs'')
will receive a rebate of $0.0004 per share for all transactions when
adding liquidity in round lots in both Less Active Securities and More
Active Securities. This filing also deletes the Exchange Traded Funds
(``ETFs'') pricing from the Exchange's 2008 Price List, as ETFs are no
longer traded on the Exchange. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the
Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange is proposing to establish a fee for all transactions
in stocks that have a trading price below $1.00 equal to the lesser of
(i) .3% of the aggregate transaction value and (ii) the fee that would
have applied if the stock did not have a trading price below $1.00.
Transactions subject to this fee limitation will include orders routed
to other markets, but not transactions that would not otherwise be
subject to a transaction fee. With respect to transactions in stocks
with a trading price below $1.00, DMMs will receive a

rebate of $0.0004 per share for all transactions when adding liquidity
in round lots in both Less Active Securities and More Active
Securities.
    Regulation NMS, adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC''),\3\ provides that each trading center intending to qualify
for trade-through protection under Regulation NMS Rule 611\4\ is
required to have a Regulation NMS-compliant trading system fully
operational by March 5, 2007 (the ``Trading Phase Date'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 242.600 to 242.612. See Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 51808 (June 9, 2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005)
(``Regulation NMS Adopting Release'').
    \4\ See 17 CFR 242.611.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55160 (January 24,
2007), 72 FR 4202 (January 30, 2007) (S7-10-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For stocks priced below $1.00 per share, Regulation NMS Rule 612
\6\ permits markets to accept bids, offers, orders and indications of
interest in increments smaller than a $0.01, but not less than $0.0001,
and to quote and trade such stocks in sub-pennies. Markets may choose
not to accept such bids, offers, orders or indications of interest and
the NYSE has done so, maintaining a minimum trading and quoting
variation of $0.01 for all securities trading below $100,000.00. See
NYSE Rule 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 242.612. Rule 612 originally was to become effective
on August 29, 2005, but the date was later extended to January 31,
2006. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52196 (Aug. 2, 2005),
70 FR 45529 (Aug. 8, 2005) (S7-10-04).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SEC's interpretation of Rule 612 requires a market that routes
an order to another market in compliance with Rule 611 and receives a
sub-penny execution, to accept the sub-penny execution, report that
execution to the customer, and compare, clear and settle that trade.
The SEC, however, provided a limited exemption to Rule 611's
proscription against trade-throughs to protected quotes that include a
sub-penny component to such quotes that are better-priced by a minimum
of $0.01.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54714 (November 6,
2006), 71 FR 66352 (November 14, 2006). (Order Granting National
Securities Exchanges a Limited Exemption from Rule 612 of Regulation
NMS under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to Permit Acceptance
by Exchanges of Certain Sub-Penny Orders.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In March, 2007, the Exchange amended Rule 123D to provide for a
``Sub-penny trading'' condition because the Exchange's trading systems
did not then accommodate sub-penny executions on orders routed to
better-priced protected quotations, nor could it recognize a quote
disseminated by another market center if such quote had a sub-penny
component and, therefore, could have inadvertently traded through
better protected quotations. The amended rule allowed the Exchange to
halt trading in a security whose price was about to fall below $1.00,
without delisting the security, so that the security could continue to
trade on other markets that deal in bids, offers, orders or indications
of interest in sub-penny prices, until the price of the security had
recovered sufficiently to permit the Exchange to resume trading in
minimum increments of no less than one penny or the issuer is delisted
for failing to correct the price condition within the time provided
under NYSE rules.\8\ A subsequent amendment established that any orders
received by the NYSE in a security subject to a ``Sub-penny trading''
condition would be routed to NYSE Arca, Inc. and handled in accordance
with the rules governing that market.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55398, 72 FR 11072
(March 12, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-25).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55537 (Mar. 27,
2007), 72 FR 15749 (April 2, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NYSE now has the technical capability to recognize protected
quotations with a sub-penny component in its round-lot market and
accommodate away market executions in sub-pennies, in compliance with
SEC Rules 611 and 612. Accordingly, the Exchange has filed an
immediately effective rule filing to eliminate the ``Sub-penny
trading'' condition in its entirety.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See SR-NYSE-2008-111 [sic] (November 6, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 610(c) of Regulation NMS imposes a limit of .3% of the
aggregate dollar value on transaction fees charged by the executing
market with respect to transactions in stocks that have trading prices
below $1.00. As the Exchange will now be trading stocks with trading
prices below $1.00, it proposes to adopt this .3% transaction fee limit
with respect to all transactions in equities whether executed on the
Exchange or routed to another market. This limit will apply to all
customers, including Designated Market Makers. However, the Exchange
will not be imposing this fee on any transaction that would otherwise
be free of charge or qualify for a credit. As, in certain cases, .3% of
the transaction value may exceed the fee that would otherwise be
charged, in such cases the Exchange will charge the lesser of (i) .3%
of the aggregate transaction value and (ii) the fee that would have
applied if the stock did not have a trading price below $1.00.
    DMMs currently receive (i) a rebate of $0.0030 per share when
adding liquidity in round lots in active securities (i.e., securities
with a consolidated average daily trading volume (``ADV'') of greater
than or equal to one million shares) (``More Active Securities); and
(ii) a rebate of $0.0035 per share when they add liquidity in round
lots in securities with a consolidated ADV of less than one million
shares (``Less Active Securities''). Because of the very low price per
share of stocks trading below a dollar, DMMs will receive a rebate of
$0.0004 per share for all transactions when adding liquidity in round
lots in both Less Active Securities and More Active Securities that
have a trading price below $1.00.
    The Exchange is eliminating all references to ETFs from its Price
List as the Exchange no longer lists ETFs or trades them on an unlisted
trading privilege basis. As a consequence, these references no longer
have any relevance.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 \11\ of the Act in general and Section
6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in particular, in that it is designed to
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other
charges among its members and other persons using its facilities. The
Exchange believes that the proposal does not constitute an inequitable
allocation of dues, fees and other charges as it conforms the
Exchange's pricing policies to the requirements of Rule 610(c) of
Regulation NMS and the lower rebates to DMMs are consistent with the
very low trading price per share of the affected securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \13\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \14\
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml ); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2008-121 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2008-121. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml ). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the self-regulatory
organization. All comments received will be posted without change; the
Commission does not edit personal identifying information from
submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make
available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
NYSE-2008-121 and should be submitted on or before December 16, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27989 Filed 11-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 4, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 68803]
[FR Doc No: 2023-22040]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98664; File No. SR-CBOE-2023-044]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Adopt a Quote Protection Timer

September 29, 2023.
    On August 30, 2023, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 \1\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend Exchange Rule 5.32
to adopt a passive quote protection mechanism. The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on September 12,
2023.\3\ No comments were received on the proposed rule change. On
September 20, 2023, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(CBOE-2023-044).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 98304 (September 6,
2023), 88 FR 62612.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-22040 Filed 10-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21234-21235]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-148-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on April 2, 2015, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C. (Tennessee), 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, filed
an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA)
requesting authorization to construct and operate its Susquehanna West
Project (Project) located in Pennsylvania. Tennessee asserts that the
proposed Project will increase east-to-west delivery capacity in the
region by approximately 145,000 dekatherms per day. Tennessee states
that the Project involves: (i) Approximately 8.1 miles of new 36-inch
diameter pipeline looping in Tioga County, Pennsylvania; (ii) pipeline
modifications associated with the pipeline loops; (iii) modification to
piping at three existing compressor stations, which are Compressor
Station 315, Compressor Station 317, and Compressor Station 319; and
(iv) increase in horsepower at two of the three existing compressor
stations. Tennessee estimates the cost of the Project to be
approximately $156.4 million, all as more fully set forth in the
application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to John
E. Griffin, Assistant General Counsel, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,
L.L.C., 1001 Louisiana Street, Houston, Texas 77002, phone: (713) 420-
3624, facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of
Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and seven copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. There is an ``eSubscription'' link on the Web
site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
    Comment Date: May 4, 2015.

    Dated: April 13, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-08872 Filed 4-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P