[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50346-50347]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19334]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-R03-CBP-2021-0235; FRL-8955-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Chesapeake Bay Program Citizen Stewardship
Index, Diversity Profile, and Local Leadership Surveys

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Chesapeake Bay Program Citizen
Stewardship Index, Diversity Profile, and Local Leadership Surveys (EPA
ICR Number 2679.01, OMB Control Number 2003-NEW) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a request for approval of a new
collection. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal
Register on May 3, 2021 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 8,
2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-R03-
CBP-2021-0235 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tuana Phillips, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region III--Chesapeake Bay Program Office, mail code:
3CB10, Annapolis City Marina, Suite 109, 410 Severn Ave., Annapolis, MD
21403; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 1-410-267-5777;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's

public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Chesapeake Bay Program (the Program) is interested in tracking its
progress at attaining its goals under the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Agreement (the Agreement). To do this, the Program plans to implement
three surveys: The Citizen Stewardship Survey, the Diversity Profile
Survey, and the Local Leadership Survey.
    EPA has specified the target audience and the implementation
approach for each to maximize the data that can be obtained. The
Citizen Stewardship Survey will be implemented as a multi-mode survey
that includes phone, web, and mail components of residents living the
Chesapeake Bay area, stratified by jurisdiction (states and the
District of Columbia). The Diversity Profile Survey will be implemented
among people who work on partnership efforts within the Bay area as a
web-based survey. The Local Leadership Survey will be implemented among
state and local elected officials involved in policy making in the Bay
area also as a web-based survey.
    The Program will be using the data from these three surveys to
track it progress under the Stewardship goal of the 2014 Agreement. The
Stewardship goal includes three outcomes: (1) Citizen Stewardship, (2)
Local Leadership, and (3) Diversity. Three surveys under this ICR each
address one of the outcomes and contributes to EPA's Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals (EPA Goal 1, A Cleaner,
Healthier Environment; Objective 1.2: Provide for Clean and Safe
Water).
    Each of the surveys under this ICR were funded and implemented by
other partners in the Chesapeake Bay area in prior years. The Program
determined that the best approach for continued implementation of these
surveys would be for the EPA assume the responsibility for implementing
these surveys; thus, EPA is seeking approval for implementing these
surveys under this ICR.
    Collecting these data and publishing them for public review will
allow the public to track how well the Agreement is working to preserve
and protect the Chesapeake Bay region from the standpoint of the
Stewardship goal outlined in the Agreement. Overall, the Agreement
contains 10 goals and their associated outcomes; data for the other
nine goals are collected through other means. Combining the data for
Stewardship goal outcomes from these surveys with the data for the
other nine goals will provide the public will have a comprehensive
picture of the progress being made to preserve and protect Chesapeake
Bay.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Stewardship survey: Members of the
general public; Local Leaders survey: Individuals in local government
leadership roles; Diversity Profile survey: Individuals working at
organizations to conserve/restore Chesapeake Bay.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 6,430 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 2,298 hours (total). Burden is defined at 5
CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $100,931 (total), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: This is a new collection.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-19334 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 243)]
[Notices]
[Page 71882]
[DOCID:fr19de07-55]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. QF08-67-000]

Red River Environmental Products, LLC; Notice of Self-
Certification of Qualifying Status of a Cogeneration Facility

December 13, 2007.
    Take notice that on November 15, 2007, Red River Environmental
Products, LLC, 8100 Southpark Way, Unit B, Littleton, CO 80120, filed
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a notice of self-
certification of a facility as a qualifying cogeneration facility
pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(a) of the Commission's regulations.
    Red River Environmental Products, LLC proposes to certify a new
bottoming cycle cogeneration facility near the town of Armistead,
Louisiana in Red River Parish (Facility). The powdered activated carbon
(PAC) manufactured at the Facility will be marketed for injection into
the flue gas stream of coal-fired power plants as an effective means of
removing mercury emissions. The process will produce PAC primarily from
coal (lignite) through a thermal process. A small quantity of natural
gas will also be used to help control the process temperature and
emissions. Waste heat from this process will be captured and used to
generate approximately 19,500 kW of gross electric power and 18,380 kW
of net electric power from each of two production lines, for a total
generating capacity of approximately 39,000 kW gross and 36,760 kW net.
The electric power in each production line will be generated by two
steam turbines: one sized to generate 15,500 kW and another sized to
generate 4,000 kW of gross power, resulting in total net power of
18,380 kW per production line. Generators will be connected to a step-
up transformer (GSU), which will step up 13.8 kV to 115 kV. The
electric power generated by the Facility will be used on site to power
the PAC manufacturing plant, and sold into the wholesale market.
    Cleco Power, LLC is the electric utility with which the Facility
expects to interconnect, transmit or sell electric energy to, or
purchase supplementary, standby, back-up and maintenance power.
    A notice of self-certification does not institute a proceeding
regarding qualifying facility status; a notice of self-certification
provides notice that the entity making filing has determined the
Facility meets the applicable criteria to be a qualifying facility. Any
person seeking to challenge such qualifying facility status may do so
by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR 292.207(d) (1)(iii), with the
appropriate filing fee.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Hydro Investors, Inc. v. Trafalgar Power Inc., 94 FERC ]
61,207, reh'g denied, 95 FERC ] 61,120 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-24666 Filed 12-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 69 (Thursday, April 9, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19968-19971]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07445]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-88559; File No. SR-BOX-2020-08]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee
Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'') Facility To Reflect
Certain Pricing Changes That Will Be in Effect While the BOX Trading
Floor Is Inoperable

April 3, 2020.
    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 2, 2020, BOX Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange filed the proposed
rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 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 the
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change

to amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Options Market LLC (``BOX'')
facility. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the
principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference
Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at http://boxexchange.com.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    As a precautionary measure to prevent the potential spread of
coronavirus (COVID-19), BOX Exchange LLC (BOX) temporarily closed the
Trading Floor in Chicago after the close of business on Friday, March
20, 2020. The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule for trading
on BOX to govern certain pricing changes that will be in effect while
the BOX Trading Floor is inoperable.
Facilitation and Solicitation Transaction Fees
    First, the Exchange proposes to amend Section I.C. (Facilitation
and Solicitation Transactions \5\) to establish a fee structure for
Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions in lieu of the current fees
for Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions while the BOX Trading
Floor is inoperable. Further, the Exchange proposes that the
Facilitation and Solicitation Transaction Rebate identified in Section
I.C.1 will not apply when the BOX Trading Floor is inoperable. With the
Trading Floor inoperable, Floor Participants will no longer be allowed
to enter Qualified Open Outcry Orders (``QOO'') Orders on BOX. Instead
these Participants must enter analogous types of electronic orders on
BOX, which are most similar to orders executed through the Facilitation
and Solicitation auction mechanism. Because of this, the Exchange
proposes to mimic the current structure for Facilitation and
Solicitation Transactions; however the Exchange proposes to make a few
minor changes to the fees assessed for these transactions when the
Trading Floor is inoperable. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
assess no fees for Agency Orders submitted to the Facilitation and
Solicitation mechanisms for all Participants, regardless of account
type.\6\ Second, the Exchange proposes to assess no fees for
Facilitation and Solicitation Orders \7\ in Penny and Non-Penny Pilot
Classes. BOX also proposes to assess a $0.50 fee for Responses in the
Facilitation or Solicitation Auction Mechanisms in Penny Pilot Classes
and $1.15 for Responses in the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms
in Non-Penny Pilot Classes.\8\ The Exchange believes the proposed fee
structure will incentivize Participants who would normally execute
orders on the BOX Trading Floor to instead submit orders to the
Exchange's Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms.\9\ Once
the Trading Floor reopens, the Exchange will make necessary changes to
the BOX Fee Schedule to remove obsolete text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Transactions executed through the Solicitation Auction
mechanism and Facilitation Auction mechanism.
    \6\ The Exchange notes that no fees are currently assessed for
Agency Orders for any account type.
    \7\ Facilitation and Solicitation Orders are the matching contra
orders submitted on the opposite side of the Agency Order.
    \8\ The Exchange notes that the total fees for Responses in the
Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms are not changing.
Currently, Participants are assessed a $0.25 fee for Responses in
the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms for Penny Pilot Classes
and an additional $0.25 liquidity fee in Section III.B totaling
$0.50 for their order. For Non-Penny Pilot Classes, Participants are
assessed a $0.40 fee for Responses in the Facilitation and
Solicitation mechanisms and an additional $0.75 liquidity fee in
Section III.B totaling $1.15 for their order. As discussed herein,
the Exchange proposes to eliminate Liquidity Fees and Credits for
Facilitation and Solicitation transactions when the Trading Floor is
inoperable. As such, the current liquidity fees are included in the
proposed Response fees for the Facilitation and Solicitation
mechanisms.
    \9\ The Exchange notes that the QOO Orders are paired orders on
the BOX Trading Floor similar to Facilitation and Solicitation
orders submitted electronically through the Facilitation and
Solicitation auction mechanism. The Exchange believes that the
reduced Facilitation and Solicitation Order fees will incentivize
Floor Participants (who are also electronic Participants on BOX) to
execute orders electronically instead of directing this order flow
to another exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Liquidity Fees and Credits
    The Exchange proposes to add text to Section III.B. (Liquidity Fees
and Credits for Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions).
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add text which states that
Participants will not be assessed Liquidity Fees and Credits for
Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions when the BOX Trading Floor
is inoperable. Once the Trading Floor reopens, the Exchange will make
necessary changes to the BOX Fee Schedule to remove obsolete text.
Participant Fees
    The Exchange proposes to add text to Section IX., Participant Fees,
which states that BOX Participant Fees will not be assessed for Trading
Floor-only Participants and Trading Floor Permit Fees will not be
assessed for any Participant while the BOX Trading Floor is
inoperable.\10\ Once the Trading Floor reopens, the Exchange will make
necessary changes to the BOX Fee Schedule to remove obsolete text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Trading Floor Participants who are also electronic
Participants will continue to be charged the BOX Participant Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act, in general, and Section
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5)of the Act,\11\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other
charges among BOX Participants and other persons using its facilities
and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers
or dealers. The proposed changes are due to the closing of the BOX
Trading Floor as of March 23, 2020. The Exchange believes the proposed
changes discussed herein will incentivize Participants to direct order
flow that that would have otherwise been executed on the BOX Trading
Floor, to be executed through the Exchange's Facilitation and
Solicitation auction mechanisms while the Trading Floor is
inoperable.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
    \12\ The Exchange notes that the QOO Orders are paired orders on
the BOX Trading Floor similar to Facilitation and Solicitation
orders submitted electronically through the Facilitation and
Solicitation auction mechanism. Under this proposal, Floor
Participants (who are also electronic Participants on BOX) will be
able to execute orders electronically despite the Trading Floor
being closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facilitation and Solicitation Transaction Fees
    The Exchange believes that the proposed fee structure for
Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions while the Trading Floor is
inoperable is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
The Exchange notes that assessing no Agency Order fees is in line with
the Exchange's current fee structure for Facilitation and Solicitation
Transactions. Further, the Exchange believes that assessing no fees

for Facilitation and Solicitation Orders in the Facilitation and
Solicitation auction mechanism is reasonable.\13\ As discussed above,
the Exchange believes that assessing no fees for Facilitation and
Solicitation Orders will attract order flow to these mechanisms that
would have otherwise been executed on the BOX Trading Floor. The
Exchange believes the proposed change will incentivize Participants to
direct their orders to the Exchange's mechanisms (instead of directing
these orders that would have normally executed on the BOX Trading Floor
to other exchanges in the industry) which will result in greater
liquidity and ultimately benefit all Participants trading on the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed change is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory, as the proposed change
applies to all Participants, regardless of account type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange notes that it previously did not charge Broker
Dealers, Professional Customers and Market Makers for Facilitation
and Solicitation Orders in the Facilitation and Solicitation
mechanism. See SR-BOX-2015-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for Responses in the
Facilitation and Solicitation auction mechanisms are reasonable. As
discussed above, as part of this temporary fee change the Exchange is
removing Liquidity Fees and Credits for the Facilitation and
Solicitation mechanisms. With the Liquidity Fees and Credits removed,
the Exchange is transferring the fee for adding liquidity ($0.25 for
Penny Pilot Class and $0.75 Non-Penny Pilot Classes) and adding these
fees to the proposed Response fees. BOX Participants responding to the
Facilitation and Solicitation orders will not be charged any
differently than they are today.\14\ Further, the Exchange believes
that the proposed fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory
because the fees are assessed to all Participants, regardless of
account type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes it is reasonable, equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory to charge higher exchange fees for responders
in the Facilitation and Solicitation auctions than for initiators of
these orders and the contra orders. The Exchange again notes that the
total transaction fee for Responses in the Facilitation and
Solicitation mechanisms is not changing. The Exchange is simply
including the liquidity fees in Section III.B. to the fees for
Responses in the Facilitation and Solicitation mechanisms which are
currently assessed today. While the Exchange is decreasing the fees for
Facilitation and Solicitation orders and creating a larger disparity
between the Initiator and Responder, the Exchange believes that the
differential between what an Initiator will pay compared to what a
Responder will pay is reasonable because Responders are willing to pay
a higher fee for liquidity discovery. The Exchange believes that
assessing no fees for Agency Orders and Facilitation and Solicitation
Orders will attract more liquidity to these mechanisms ultimately
providing Responders with increased opportunity for executions on the
Exchange. Despite the increased differential between the Initiator and
Responder, the Exchange again notes that Responders are not paying any
more than what they currently pay for responses in these mechanisms
today. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for Responders
are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as they apply to all
Participants, regardless of account type.
    The Exchange further believes it is reasonable to establish
different fees for Responses to Facilitation and Solicitation
transactions in Penny Pilot Classes compared to transactions in Non-
Penny Pilot Classes. The Exchange makes this distinction throughout the
BOX Fee Schedule, including the Exchange Fees for PIP and COPIP
Transactions. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to establish
higher fees for Non-Penny Pilot Classes because these Classes are
typically less actively traded and have wider spreads.
Liquidity Fees and Credits
    Currently, the Liquidity Fees and Credits fee structure for
Facilitation and Solicitation transactions, in particular the credit
for removing liquidity, aims to attract order flow to the BOX auction
mechanisms. The Exchange believes that eliminating the Liquidity Fees
and Credits for Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions when the
Trading Floor is inoperable is reasonable as the Exchange has, pursuant
to this proposal, eliminated Facilitation and Solicitation Order
fees.\15\ Market participants no longer need the incentive of a credit
for removing liquidity when there are no fees assessed for Agency
Orders and Facilitation and Solicitation Orders in the Facilitation and
Solicitation auction mechanism. Further, the Exchange believes the
proposed change is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that
the change will apply to all categories of Participants and across all
account types.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Exchange again notes that no fees are assessed for
Agency Orders for any account type.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Participant Fees
    The Exchange believes that waiving BOX Participant Fees and Trading
Floor Permit Fees for Trading Floor Only Participants is reasonable and
appropriate because the BOX Trading Floor is inoperable due to the
precautionary measure to prevent the potential spread of COVID-19. The
Exchange believes waiving these fees is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the fees are waived for all Floor Participants,
regardless of account type. The Exchange believes it is reasonable and
appropriate to continue to assess Participant Fees to Floor
Participants who are also an electronic Participant as those
Participants will still be able to execute transactions on the
Exchange's electronic market.
    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing exchanges. In such an environment, the Exchange must
continually review, and consider adjusting, its fees to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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 believes that the
proposed changes to the Facilitation and Solicitation Transaction fees
will not impose a burden on competition among various Exchange
Participants. Rather, BOX believes that the change will result in the
Participants being charged appropriately for these transactions and are
designed to enhance competition in the Facilitation and Solicitation
mechanisms. Submitting an order is entirely voluntary and Participants
can determine which order type they wish to submit, if any, to the
Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes that this proposal will
enhance competition between exchanges because it is designed to allow
the Exchange to better compete with other exchanges for order flow. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will burden
competition by creating a disparity between the fees an initiator pays
and the fees a competitive responder pays that would result in certain
Participants being unable to compete with initiators. In fact, the
Exchange believes that these changes will not impair these

Participants from adding liquidity and competing in the Facilitation
and Solicitation mechanisms, and will help promote competition by
providing incentives for market participants to submit Facilitation and
Solicitation Orders, and thus benefit all Participants trading on the
Exchange by attracting customer order flow.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes that eliminating the Liquidity Fees
and Credits for Facilitation and Solicitation Transactions will not
burden competition as the proposed change applies to all market
participants. As discussed above, the Exchange believes that
eliminating the Liquidity Fees and Credits for Facilitation and
Solicitation Transactions is reasonable as the Exchange, pursuant to
this proposal, has eliminated Facilitation and Solicitation Order fees.
Therefore, the credit for removing liquidity is no longer needed to
incentivize Participants to submit order flow to the Facilitation and
Solicitation auction mechanisms.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the
    Exchange Act \16\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\17\ because it
establishes or changes a due, or fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BOX-2020-08 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-BOX-2020-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-BOX-2020-08, and should be submitted on
or before April 30, 2020.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-07445 Filed 4-8-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Personal Communication: Between Andrew Opalko, U. S. EPA, and Industrial Economics, Incorporated Date: May 8, 1998 Content: Andrew Opalko answered questions regarding incinerator compliance with RCRA at CERCLA cleanups. According to Mr. Opalko, CERCLA systems do not require Title V permits; they must simply meet applicable, relevant, and appropriate requirements ( ARARs) in order to operate.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28747-28750]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12994]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0845; FRL-9994-34]

Melamine Formaldehyde Polycondensate Resin; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of formaldehyde, reaction products with
melamine; 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer with formaldehyde;
formaldehyde reaction products with melamine and methanol; and 1,3,5-
triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer with formaldehyde, methylated;
collectively referred to as melamine formaldehyde polycondensate resin;
when used as an inert ingredient in a pesticide chemical formulation.
BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of formaldehyde,
reaction products with melamine; 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer
with formaldehyde; formaldehyde reaction products with melamine and
methanol; 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer with formaldehyde,
methylated on food or feed commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 20, 2019. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 19, 2019,
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-2018-0845, 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 (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

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

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

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

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

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

C. 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-2018-0845 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
August 19, 2019. 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-2018-0845, 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. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of March 18, 2019 (84 FR 9735) (FRL-9989-
90), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-11260)
filed by BASF Corporation, 26 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709. The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by
establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of formaldehyde, reaction products with melamine (CAS Reg. No.
94645-56-4); 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer with formaldehyde
(CAS Reg. No. 9003-08-1); formaldehyde reaction products with melamine
and methanol (CAS Reg. No. 94645-53-1); 1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine,
polymer with formaldehyde, methylated (CAS Reg. No. 68002-20-0). That
document included a summary of the petition prepared by the petitioner
and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. One comment was
received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to these comments is
discussed in Unit VIII.B.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of 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 use 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 an exemption from the
requirement of 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 . . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information 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. In the case of certain
chemical substances that are defined as polymers, the Agency has
established a set of criteria to identify categories of polymers
expected to present minimal or no risk. The definition of a polymer is
given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the exclusion criteria for identifying
these low-risk polymers are described in 40 CFR 723.250(d). Melamine
formaldehyde polycondensate resin conforms to the definition of a
polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the following criteria
that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.
    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
at least two of the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen,
silicon, and sulfur.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as listed in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Additionally, the polymer also meets as required the following
exemption criteria specified in 40 CFR 723.250(e).
    8. The polymer's number average MW of 10,000 is greater than or
equal to 10,000 daltons. The polymer contains less than 2% oligomeric
material below MW 500 and less than 5% oligomeric material below MW
1,000.
    Thus, melamine formaldehyde polycondensate resin meet the criteria
for a polymer to be considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on
its conformance to the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is
anticipated from dietary, inhalation, or dermal exposure to melamine
formaldehyde polycondensate resin.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that melamine formaldehyde polycondensate
resin could be present in all raw and processed agricultural
commodities and drinking water, and that non-occupational non-dietary
exposure was possible. The number average MW of melamine formaldehyde
polycondensate resin is 10,000 daltons. Generally, a polymer of this
size would be poorly absorbed through the intact gastrointestinal tract
or through intact human skin. Since melamine formaldehyde
polycondensate resin conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk
polymer, there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential
exposure scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has
determined that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public
health.

V. 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 melamine formaldehyde polycondensate resin to
share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and
melamine formaldehyde polycondensate resin does not appear to produce a
toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that melamine formaldehyde
polycondensate resin does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with
other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine
which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold 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 data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of melamine formaldehyde
polycondensate resin, EPA has not used a safety factor analysis to
assess the risk. For the same reasons the additional tenfold safety
factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of melamine formaldehyde polycondensate
resin.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

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

B. Response to Comments

    One comment was received in response to the Notice of Filing,
generally stating that exposure to pesticides needs to be decreased.
The Agency recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides
should be limited or banned on agricultural crops. However, the
existing legal framework provided by section 408 of the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) states that tolerances may be set when
persons seeking such tolerances or exemptions have demonstrated that
the pesticide meets the safety standard imposed by that statute. This
citizen's comment appears to be directed at the underlying statute and
not EPA's implementation of it; the citizen has provided no information
that would support a conclusion that these exemptions are not safe.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of melamine
formaldehyde polycondensate resin from the requirement of a tolerance
will be safe.

X. 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).

XI. Congressional Review Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: June 10, 2019.
Michael 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.  180.960, add alphabetically the polymers ''Formaldehyde,
reaction products with melamine, minimum number average molecular
weight (in amu), 10000''; ''Formaldehyde, reaction products with
melamine and methanol, minimum number average molecular weight (in
amu), 10000''; ``1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer with
formaldehyde, minimum number average molecular weight (in amu),
10000''; and ``1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer with
formaldehyde, methylated, minimum number average molecular weight (in
amu), 10000'' to the table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
formaldehyde, reaction products with melamine, minimum        94645-56-4
 number average molecular weight (in amu), 10000........

                              * * * * * * *
formaldehyde, reaction products with melamine and             94645-53-1
 methanol, minimum number average molecular weight (in
 amu), 10000............................................

                              * * * * * * *
1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer with                    9003-08-1
 formaldehyde, minimum number average molecular weight
 (in amu), 10000........................................

                              * * * * * * *
1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-triamine, polymer with                   68002-20-0
 formaldehyde, methylated, minimum number average
 molecular weight (in amu), 10000.......................

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

[FR Doc. 2019-12994 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P