[Federal Register: June 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31121-31122]
[DOCID:fr05jn07-76]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55829; File No. SR-DTC-2006-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Modify DTC's Fee Schedule

May 30, 2007.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ notice is hereby given that on December 20, 2006, The
Depository Trust Company (``DTC'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change described
in Items I, II, and III below, which items have been prepared primarily
by DTC. DTC filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder so that the proposed
rule change was effective upon filing with the Commission.\2\ The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change would revise fees for
certain services provided by DTC, including (1) decreases to certain
fees related to settlement services as part of DTC's continuing efforts
to more closely align fees with costs, (2) increases to certain fees
related to securities processing, custody and asset servicing, and
underwriting services to realign fees with costs, (3) introduction of
fees for to discourage certain activities that increase industry
inefficiencies, and (4) introduction of new fees related to cost
recovery for certain manually intensive services, systems development,
or use of Investor's Voluntary Redemptions and Sales Service
(``IVORS'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The text of the DTC's specific fee changes is set forth in
its filing, which can be found at http://www.dtc.org/impNtc/mor/index.html#2006
.

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

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

    In its filing with the Commission, DTC included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. DTC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A),
(B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these
statements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    DTC is revising its fees for certain services provided by DTC.
These changes include (1) Decreases to certain settlement services fees
as part of DTC's continuing efforts to more closely align fees with
costs and (2) increases to certain fees related to securities
processing, custody and asset servicing, and underwriting services to
realign fees with costs.
    In addition, DTC is implementing fees to discourage activities
which increase industry inefficiencies. Changes in these fees for 2007
include fee increases for (1) Withdrawal by transfer (in connection
with DTC's continuing efforts to discourage use of physical
certificates), (2) deposit services (to encourage the use of the
paperless legal deposit services), and (3) custody services (to
encourage the elimination of positions in nontransferable securities).
DTC is introducing new fees for (1) manually intensive photocopy and
research requests performed in the reorganization service, (2) cost
recovery relating to the ongoing development of the new issue
information dissemination service under DTC's underwriting services,
and (3) transactions processed using the rollover feature of the
IVORS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For more information on the IVORS rollover feature, see
Exchange Act Release No. 34-50279 (August 27, 2004) 69 FR 50279
(September 7, 2004) [File No. SR-DTC-2004-08].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These proposed fee revisions are consistent with DTC's overall
pricing philosophy to align service fees with underlying costs, to
discourage manual and exception processing, and to encourage
immobilization and dematerialization of securities. The effective date
for these fee adjustments was January 2, 2007.
    DTC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
requirements of Section 17A of the Act \6\ and the rules and
regulations thereunder that are applicable to DTC because it clarifies
and updates DTC's fee schedule. As such, the rule change provides for
the equitable allocation of fees among its participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \8\
thereunder because it is establishing or changing a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a participant. At any time within sixty days
of the filing of such rule change, the Commission may summarily
abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such
action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the
protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
) or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-DTC-2006-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2006-20. 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 Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filings also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of DTC and
on DTC's Web site, http://www.dtcc.com. All comments received will be

posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal
identifying information from submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-DTC-2006-20 and should be submitted on
or before June 26, 2007.

    For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-10768 Filed 6-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8749-8751]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02605]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0462; FRL-10005-28-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Georgia: Revisions to Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Georgia,
through the Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GA EPD) of the
Department of Natural Resources, via a letter dated July 31, 2018.
Specifically, EPA is approving typographical changes to Georgia's SIP-
approved regulations regarding its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(CSAPR) state trading programs. This action is being approved pursuant
to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

DATES: This rule will be effective March 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0462. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Scofield, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9034. Mr. Scofield can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 15, 2019 (84 FR 55107), EPA proposed to approve into the
Georgia SIP several changes to Georgia's air quality rule 391-3-1-.02,
``Provisions. Amended.'' GA EPD submitted a SIP revision through a
letter dated July 31, 2018,\1\ to EPA for review and approval that
revises Georgia's SIP-approved rules regarding its CSAPR \2\ state
trading programs at Rule 391-3-1-.02(12)--``Cross State Air Pollution
Rule NOX Annual Trading Program,'' Rule 391-3-1-.02(13)--
``Cross State Air Pollution Rule SO2 Annual Trading
Program,'' and Rule 391-3-1-.02(14)--``Cross State Air Pollution Rule
NOX Ozone Season Trading Program.'' The details of the
Georgia submission and the rationale for EPA's action are explained in
the proposed rulemaking. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due
on or before November 14, 2019. EPA did not receive any adverse
comments on the proposed action. EPA is now taking final action to
approve the above-referenced revisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA received the SIP revision on August 2, 2018. EPA
received several other SIP revisions from Georgia through GA EPD's
July 31, 2018, letter. These other revisions have been or will be
addressed in separate EPA actions.
    \2\ CSAPR is a Federal rule that requires 27 Eastern states to
limit their statewide emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from electric generating units
(EGUs) that significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment of
the 1997 Annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Through its CSAPR rulemakings, EPA determined that air pollution
transported from EGUs in Georgia would unlawfully affect other
states' ability to attain or maintain the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and included Georgia in the CSAPR ozone
season NOX trading program and the annual SO2
and NOX trading programs. In 2017, EPA approved Georgia's
State trading programs for annual NOX, annual
SO2, and ozone season NOX emissions and
incorporated Georgia Rules 391-3-1-.02(12), .02(13), and .02(14)
into the SIP. See 82 FR 47930 (October 13, 2017) for more
information on CSAPR and Georgia's CSAPR state trading programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Georgia Rule
391-3-1-.02(12)--``Cross State Air Pollution Rule NOX Annual
Trading Program,'' Rule 391-3-1-.02(13)--``Cross State Air Pollution
Rule SO2 Annual Trading Program,'' and Rule 391-3-
1-.02(14)--``Cross State Air Pollution Rule NOX Ozone Season
Trading Program,'' State effective July 23, 2018. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan,
have been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the aforementioned changes to Georgia's SIP at
Rule 391-3-1-.02(12)--``Cross State Air Pollution Rule NOX
Annual Trading Program,'' Rule 391-3-1-.02(13)--``Cross State Air
Pollution Rule SO2 Annual Trading Program,'' and Rule 391-3-
1-.02(14)--``Cross State Air Pollution Rule NOX Ozone Season
Trading Program.'' These changes are consistent with the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible

methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 20, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon
moNOXide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: January 31, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570(c) is amended in the table under the heading ``391-3-
1-.02(2) Emission Standards'' by revising the entries for ``391-3-
1-.02(12)'', ``391-3-1-.02(13)'', and ``391-3-1-.02(14)'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.570   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
         State citation                Title/subject      effective date     EPA approval date      Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(2)..................                                Emission Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(12).................  Cross State Air              7/23/2018  2/18/2020, [Insert
                                   Pollution Rule NOX                      citation of
                                   Annual Trading                          publication].
                                   Program.
391-3-1-.02(13).................  Cross State Air              7/23/2018  2/18/2020, [Insert
                                   Pollution Rule SO2                      citation of
                                   Annual Trading                          publication].
                                   Program.
391-3-1-.02(14).................  Cross State Air              7/23/2018  2/18/2020, [Insert
                                   Pollution Rule NOX                      citation of
                                   Ozone Season Trading                    publication].
                                   Program.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-02605 Filed 2-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69908-69910]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28262]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68242; File No. SR-CBOE-2012-110]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Weekly Options Program

November 15, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on November 9, 2012, the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated (the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by
the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rules 5.5(d) and 24.9(a)(2)(A) to
expand the number of expirations available under the Short Term Option
Series Program (``Weeklys Program'' or ``Weekly option''), to allow for
the Exchange to delist any Weekly option series that do not have open
interest and to expand the number of series per class permitted in
Weekly options under limited circumstances. The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.org/legal), 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 those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    This is a competitive filing that is based on a recently approved
filings submitted by NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'') and NYSE MKT, LLC
(``NYSE MKT'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 68190 (November 8,
2012) (order approving SR-NYSEArca-2012-95) (``NYSE Arca filing'')
and 68191 (November 8, 2012) (order approving SR-NYSEMKT-2012-42)
(``NYSE MKT filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposal is to amend CBOE Rules 5.5(d) and
24.9(a)(2)(A) to provide for the ability to open up to five consecutive
expirations under the Short Term Option Series Program (``Weeklys
Program'' or ``Weekly options'') for trading on the Exchange, to allow
for the Exchange to delist any Weekly option series that does not have
open interest and to expand the number of series per class permitted in
Weekly options under limited circumstances when there are no series at
least 10% but not more than 30% away from the current price/value of
the underlying security/index.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ On July 12, 2005, the Commission approved the Weeklys
Program on a pilot basis. See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
52011 (July 12, 2005), 70 FR 41451 (July 19, 2005) (SR-CBOE-2004-
63). The Weeklys Program was made permanent on April 27, 2009. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59824 (April 27, 2009), 74 FR
20518 (May 4, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2009-018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange may select up to thirty (30) currently
listed option classes on which options may be opened in the Weeklys
Program and the Exchange may also match any option classes that are
selected by other securities exchanges that employ a similar program
under their respective rules.\5\ For each option class eligible for
participation in the Weeklys Program, the Exchange may open up to
thirty (30) Weekly option series for each expiration date in that
class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See CBOE Rules 5.5(d)(1) and 24.9(a)(2)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposal seeks to allow the Exchange to open Weekly option
series for up to five (5) consecutive week expirations. The Exchange
intends to add a maximum of five (5) consecutive week expirations under
the Weeklys Program; however, it will not add a Weekly option
expiration in the same week that a monthly option series expires or, in
the case of Quarterly Option Series (``QOS'') or Quarterly Index
Expirations (``QIXs''), on an expiration that coincides with an
expiration of QOS or QIXs on the same class. In other words, the total
number of consecutive expirations will be five

(5), including any existing monthly or quarterly expirations.\6\ This
change is being proposed notwithstanding the current cap of 30 series
per class under the Weeklys Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, if quarterly options expire week 1 and monthly
options expire week 3 from now, the proposal would allow the
following expirations: week 1 quarterly option, week 2 Weekly
option, week 3 monthly option, week 4 Weekly option, and week 5
Weekly option. If quarterly options expire week 3 and monthly
options expire week 5, the following expirations would be allowed:
week 1 Weekly option, week 2 Weekly option, week 3 quarterly option,
week 4 Weekly option, and week 5 monthly option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the Weeklys Program has been well-received
by market participants, in particular by retail investors. The Exchange
believes that the current proposed revision to the Weeklys Program will
permit the Exchange to meet increased customer demand and provide
market participants with the ability to hedge in a greater number of
option classes and series.
    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange has analyzed its capacity and represents that it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority have the necessary systems capacity
to handle the potential additional traffic associated with trading of
an expanded number of expirations that participate in the Weeklys
Program.
    In addition, to provide for circumstances where the underlying
security or index has moved such that there are no series that are at
least 10% above or below the current price or value of the underlying
security or index, the Exchange is proposing to add new subparagraphs
(6) and (vi) to CBOE Rules 5.5(d) and 24.9(a)(2)(A), respectively, to
provide that the Exchange would delist series with no open interest in
both the call and the put series having a: (i) strike higher than the
highest price with open interest in the put and/or call series for a
given expiration week; and (ii) strike lower than the lowest strike
price with open interest in the put and/or the call series for a given
expiration week, so as to list series that are at least 10% but not
more than 30% above or below the current price or value of the
underlying security or index. Further, in the event that all existing
series have open interest and there are no series at least 10% above or
below the current price or value of the underlying security or index,
the Exchange may list additional series, in excess of the 30 series per
class allowed currently under CBOE Rules 5.5(d)(1) and
24.9(a)(2)(A)(i), that are at least 10% and not more than 30% above or
below the current price or value of the underlying security or index.
    The Exchange believes that it is important to allow investors to
roll existing option positions and to ensure that there are always
series at least 10% but not more than 30% above or below the current
price or value of the underlying security or index will allow investors
the flexibility they need to roll existing positions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that expanding the Weeklys Program will
result in a continuing benefit to investors by giving them more
flexibility to closely tailor their investment decisions and hedging
decisions in a greater number of securities. The Exchange also believes
that expanding the Weeklys Program will provide the investing public
and other market participants with additional opportunities to hedge
their investment thus allowing these investors to better manage their
risk exposure. While the expansion of the Weeklys Program will generate
additional quote traffic, the Exchange does not believe that this
increased traffic will become unmanageable since the proposal remains
limited to a fixed number of expirations. The Exchange believes that
the ability to delist series with no open interest in both the call and
the put series will benefit investors by devoting the current cap in
the number of series to those series that are more closely tailored to
the investment decisions and hedging decisions of investors.

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

    This proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that
proposal is a competitive filing. CBOE believes this proposed rule
change is necessary to permit fair competition among the options
exchanges.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest, does not
impose any significant burden on competition, and, by its terms, does
not become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed,
or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Commission has waived this requirement in this case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay. The Commission believes that waiver of the operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because the proposal is substantially similar to those of
other exchanges that have been approved by the Commission and permit
such exchanges to open up to five consecutive expirations under their
respective Short Term Option Series Programs as well as allow for the
exchanges to delist any Weekly option series that do not have open
interest and expand the number of series per class permitted in Weekly
options under limited circumstances.\11\ Therefore, the Commission
designates the proposal operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 3.
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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-CBOE-2012-110 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-110. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2012-110 and should be
submitted on or before December 12, 2012.

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

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-28262 Filed 11-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


SF 83 SUPPORTING STATEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions 1. Identification of the Information Collection 1( a) Title of the Information Collection Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions 1( b) Short Characterization/ Abstract This is a request for a renewal of an existing Information Collection Request ( ICR) due to expire on September 30, 2004. The title of this submission is: " Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions." This ICR authorizes the collection of information under EPA's Superfund Rule at 40 CFR 35, Subpart O, that establishes the administrative requirements for CERCLA funded cooperative agreements for State, political subdivisions, and Federally recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal Consortia response actions. The regulation includes only those provisions mandated by CERCLA, required by OMB circulars, or added by EPA to ensure sound and effective financial assistance management under this regulation. The information is collected from applicants and/ or recipients of EPA assistance and is used to make awards, pay recipients, and collect information on how Federal funds are being utilized. EPA requires this information to meet its Federal stewardship responsibilities. Recipient responses are required to obtain a benefit ( Federal funds) under 40 CFR Part 31, " Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments" and under 40 CFR Part 35, " State and Local Assistance."

It is estimated that the information collection will involve 581 respondents and impose a burden of 6,062.5 hours and $ 215,340. The previously approved ICR was approved without any terms of clearance.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection This ICR is necessary due to the information collection and reporting requirements in the Superfund rule 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, " Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions." Due to the statutory cost recovery requirements in CERCLA and the need to carefully track all costs, Superfund recipients must comply with administrative requirements sufficient to meet these provisions of the law. The regulation sets 2 forth the pre award, post award, and post cooperative agreement requirements which are conditions for receiving/ managing a Superfund cooperative agreement ( CA) or a Superfund State Contract ( SSC). This information is needed by EPA project officers, grant specialists, and finance officials to manage/ oversee the funding activities and cleanup activities at Superfund sites. EPA also uses the information to update the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System ( CERCLIS) which tracks progress made at Superfund sites, and to update IFMS, EPA's database for tracking financial management.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data The information collected is used by EPA to manage and administer cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund response actions. The pre award information is used to qualify cooperative agreement applicants and award cooperative agreements. The post award information is used to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements and monitor recipient performance. The closeout information is used to meet reporting and record keeping requirements necessary for cost recovery purposes and for closing out awards. The information is necessary to ensure minimum fiscal control and accountability for Superfund money to deter waste, fraud, and abuse.

40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, also supplements EPA's general assistance regulation, 40 CFR Part 31, " Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments." Part 31, which implements the requirements of OMB Circular A 102, became effective for awards made on or after October 1, 1988. The Part 31 rule ( common rule) established uniformity among Federal agencies that award Federal grants and cooperative agreements to States, political subdivisions thereof, and Federally recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal Consortia. Many of the information collection requirements for Superfund cooperative agreements were approved under the OMB Paperwork Clearance # 2030 0020 associated with 40 CFR Part 31 prior to this ICR.

Due to statutory cost recovery requirements, and the need to carefully track costs by site and activity, Superfund recipients must comply with all administrative requirements to satisfy the provisions of the law. There are additional requirements in this regulation, which supplements Part 31, and are necessary for effective cost recovery from potentially responsible parties. States may be able to follow their own rules for certain aspects of the program, such as in procurement, if their administrative requirements and financial management capabilities are sufficient.

3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication All information collected is used to continue administering cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund response actions. This data is not available from other sources, as it is specifically related to the requirements of 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, and the 3 award, management, and closeout of cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts within this program.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB An announcement of a public comment period for the renewal of this ICR was published in the Federal Register ( 69 FR 40369) on July 4, 2004. One comment was received on the burden published in the Federal Register. The substance of this comment follows:

" This info collection should be on an every 3 year schedule, not every year, which overburdens taxpayers to pay for this wasteful process. why collect paper mountains of the same darn thing year after year. especially when there is no money to fix them, with u. s. spending all of its money on 2 wars."

EPA responded to this comment as follows:

" The paperwork burden provided in the ICR is only to states, tribes and political subdivisions of states, applying for financial assistance through Superfund to investigate, assess and clean up hazardous waste sites.

The paperwork burden for states, tribes, and political subdivisions of states, in the ICR consists exclusively of the time cost of putting together a cooperative agreement application for a Superfund cleanup activity and complying with the requirements during the life of the application to ensure that Federal monies awarded to the recipient are used for only regulated activites under 40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O. These monies are awarded based on a number of factors at 90% Federal funding with a 10% matching share from the recipient."

3( c) Consultations This is a request for renewal of an information collection request, and in addition to the initial Federal Register notice, the following persons were contacted to provide additional input towards the calculation of burden imposed by this ICR:

Jay Naparstek  Chair State/ Federal Superfund Coordinator & Section Chief Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup MA Dept. of Environmental Protection One Winter St. Boston, MA 02108 Terry Ayers Division of Remediation Management 4 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 1021 North Grand Avenue East P. O. Box 19276 Springfield, IL 62794 9276 Bob Soboleski Site Remediation and Solid Waste Program Div. of Remedial Management & Response NJ Dept. of Environmental Protection CN 413 Trenton, NJ 08625 Hal Cantwell Waste Management Division OK Dept. of Environmental Quality 707 N. Robinson Street P. O. Box 1677 ( Mailing Address) Oklahoma City, OK 73101 1677 Tom Gainer Cleanup / Portland Harbor Northwest Region OR Department of Environmental Quality 2020 SW Fourth Ave., Suite 400 Portland, OR 97201 Andrew Shivas Manager, Voluntary Cleanup Program Division of Superfund TN Dept. of Environment & Conservation 401 Church St., L& C Annex, 4th Fl. Nashville, TN 37243 1538 Kevin Greene Office of Remediation Programs VA Dept. of Environmental Quality P. O. Box 10009 629 E. Main St., 10th Fl. Richmond, VA 23240 0009 Brent Everett CERCLA Branch Manager UT Dept. of Environmental Quality 5 168 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Sara Amir Chief, Southern Cleanup Operations Site Remediation and Brownfields Program CA Dept. of Toxic Substances Control 1011 N. Grandview Glendale, CA 91201 Kirby Biggs U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Washington, DC 20460 Carol Cowgill U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Washington, DC 20460 Three of the persons contacted responded, two of which commented on the burdens presented in the burden table. The remaining respondent provided information relating to application materials, rather than reporting and recordkeeping. Reviewers responses resulted in revisions to the burden calculation from the currently published ICR.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection There is no fixed schedule for the collection of this information. It is required on an as needed basis as stated in the rule at 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O, " Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Contracts for Superfund Response Actions." Therefore, there is no possibility that the information can be collected less frequently than required by the regulation.

3( e) General Guidelines The information collection is consistent with the guidelines set forth in 5 CFR 1320.5 of the Paperwork Reduction Act Guidelines.

3( f) Confidentiality No sensitive information is expected to be collected under this ICR. However, any information submitted to the Agency for which a claim of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the Agency policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B  Confidentiality of Business Information ( see 40 CFR 2; 41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 40000, September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42251, September 20, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979). 6 3( g) Sensitive Questions None of the information being collected will contain sensitive questions or require collecting sensitive information.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes The respondents to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements are:

SIC Codes NAICS Codes Other General Government Support 9119 921190 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Governments 8641 92115 4( b) Information Requested ( i) Data Items Information requested   Information relating to the following cooperative agreement types and Superfund State Contracts will be collected to ensure sound and effective financial assistance management and to help EPA meet its Federal stewardship responsibilities under this program:

° Pre remedial cooperative agreements; ° Remedial Response cooperative agreements; ° Enforcement cooperative agreements; ° Removal cooperative agreements; ° Core Program cooperative agreements; ° Support Agency cooperative agreements; ° Records Retention; ° Superfund State Contracts; ° Conclusion of Superfund State Contracts; and ° Consolidated Funding.

This information will also be used to update and maintain both the CERCLIS database, and the IFMS database.

( ii) Respondent Activities 7 Respondents will:

° Prepare and submit cooperative agreements/ Superfund State Contract application materials;

° Conduct research and gather data as needed; ° Prepare and submit quarterly/ bi annual reports; ° Prepare other standardized reports; ° Perform required recordkeeping activities; ° Respond to EPA requests for additional information; and ° Perform other activities as necessary as required by 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O.

5. The Information Collected: Agency Activities, Collection Methodology, and Information Management 5( a) Agency Activities EPA will collect the requested information using standardized reports and record keeping appropriate to support cost recovery. The grants information is entered into GICS, the Agency's database for tracking the status of grant/ cooperative agreement actions. The technical ( programmatic) information is entered into CERCLIS the Agency's database for tracking the status of all response activities at Superfund sites, and financial information is entered into IFMS, the Agency's database for tracking financial management.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management EPA will conduct activities in connection with the acquisition, analysis, storage, and utilization of the requested cooperative agreement and Superfund State Contract related information and financial data. This information and financial date are reviewed in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O.

Superfund recipients must retain records for 10 years following the submission of the final Financial Status Report, and must retain those records longer if an enforcement action is ongoing. This ensures that response action information will be available to support EPA litigation efforts to recover Superfund costs from responsible parties. The Agency also conducts periodic on site reviews to ensure recipient compliance with applicable requirements.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility There are no small businesses affected by this information collection. Small Governmental Jurisdictions are affected, but the burden is minimal, and steps have been taken to reduce the burden imposed by this information collection. As 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O is a fully funded 8 regulation, all burden imposed by the regulation is required in order for recipients to obtain and manage financial awards.

5( d) Collection Schedule The collection schedule for this information relating to cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts is variable depending on such factors as: date of applications, magnitude of efforts, and project periods, etc.

6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection Table 1, " Total Respondent Burden," documents the computation of individual burdens for providing the information required for the application and administration of each type of cooperative agreement and each Superfund State Contract included in this ICR. The individual burden is expressed under a heading believed to be consistent with the concept of burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Responses to this information collection are mandatory, as they are required to property manage and administer the funds awarded under cooperative agreements and Superfund State Contracts.

The 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.

6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden A " unit" burden is the burden incurred by a respondent for performing a cooperative agreement specific activity. States incur burdens under an estimated 581 cooperative agreement and Superfund State Contract activities per year for reporting, certifications, schedules, notifications, assurances, and record keeping activities. The estimated burden is incurred by activities under the following types of cooperative agreements/ Superfund State Contracts and other requirements:

° Pre remedial cooperative agreements; ° Remedial Response cooperative agreements; ° Enforcement cooperative agreements; ° Removal cooperative agreements; ° Core Program cooperative agreements; ° Support Agency cooperative agreements; ° Records Retention; ° Superfund State Contract; ° Conclusion of Superfund State Contracts; and ° Consolidated Funding. 9 The estimated average burden associated with each cooperative agreement/ Superfund State Contract/ Other requirement is discussed below and summarized in Table 1, " Total Respondent Burden."

The estimated burden associated with Pre remedial cooperative agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in research, data collection, analysis, negotiation, and preparation of the Pre remedial cooperative agreement. EPA estimates that approximately 33 Pre remedial cooperative agreements involving States, Tribes, or political subdivisions, will be in place each year. EPA estimates that an average of 7 hours are necessary to prepare all the plans, compliance documents, lists and schedules required in the application for this type of cooperative agreement within Subpart O.

The estimated burden associated with Remedial Response cooperative agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in research, plan preparation, data collection, analysis, and negotiation in preparing the materials required for a Remedial Response cooperative agreements. EPA estimates that approximately 30 Remedial Response cooperative agreements, which involve States, Tribes, and political subdivisions, will be in place each year. EPA estimates that an average of 20 hours are necessary to prepare all the materials required in an application for this type of cooperative agreements. Those materials include: a project narrative, which includes much more site specific information than a project narrative for a Pre remedial cooperative agreement; compliance documents and certifications; CERCLA assurances; and notifications. The majority of the burden under this cooperative agreement is associated with the preparation of the schedule of deliverables. Though the format of that schedule is fairly standard, the planning and negotiation involved can be time consuming.

The estimated burden associated with Enforcement cooperative agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in research, plan and certification documentation preparation, such as the quality assurance plan, data collection, and analysis in the preparation of materials involved in acquiring and operating within an Enforcement cooperative agreement. EPA estimates that an average of 1 Enforcement cooperative agreement will be in place each year. EPA also estimates that approximately 43 hours are needed to fulfill the requirements imposed by this type of cooperative agreement. Those requirements include: creating the site description; creating the site specific statement of work; producing the statement designating lead site project manager; creating the site specific health and safety plan; producing the quality assurance plan; developing the schedule of deliverables; and producing a copy of the applicable state, local, or tribal statutes. The majority of the burden is imposed by the creation of the site specific statement of work, the quality assurance plan, and the schedule of deliverables.

The estimated burden associated with Removal Response cooperative agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in research, plan preparation, data collection, analysis, and negotiation in preparing the materials required for a Removal Response cooperative agreement EPA estimates that approximately 21 Removal Response cooperative agreements, which involve States, Tribes, and political subdivisions, will be in place each year. EPA estimates that an average 10 of 42 hours are necessary to prepare all the materials required for this type of cooperative agreement. Those required materials include: a site description; a site specific statement of work; a statement designating lead site project manager; a site specific community relations plan; a site specific health and safety plan; a quality assurance plan; a schedule of deliverables. Program experience has shown that the majority of the burden imposed under the requirements for this type of cooperative agreement can be attributed to the development of the schedule of deliverables and the quality assurance plan.

The estimated burden associated with Core Program cooperative agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in research, data collection, analysis, and negotiation in preparing the materials required for a Core Program cooperative agreement. EPA estimates that 22 Core Program cooperative agreements, which involve States, Tribes, and political subdivisions, will be in place each year. Superfund program experience indicates that 8 hours are needed to fulfill the requirements imposed by this type of cooperative agreement. Those requirements include preparing a statement of work, and a background statement. Those two requirements are responsible for the majority of burden attributed to Core Program cooperative agreements.

The estimated burden associated with Support Agency cooperative agreements represents the number of hours that are spent in research, data collection, analysis, and negotiation in preparing the materials required for a Support Agency cooperative agreement. EPA estimates that approximately 45 Support Agency cooperative agreements, which involve States, Tribes, and political subdivisions, will be in place each year. EPA estimates that an average of 8 hours are needed to prepare all the materials required for this type of cooperative agreement. The majority of the burden imposed by a Support Agency cooperative agreement can attributed to the development of the required statement of work. This burden has been reduced from the last ICR due to recent rule revisions eliminating Support Agency cost sharing for Federally recognized Indian Tribes and Tribal Consortia.

The estimated burden associated with the Records Retention requirements represents the number of hours that are spent each year beyond the 10 year ( Superfund) retention requirement for record maintenance, storage, and any document requests that would be made throughout the year. All cooperative agreements must meet these Records Retention requirements, and incur the resulting burden. EPA estimates that approximately 375 cooperative agreements will be in place each year. Superfund program experience indicates that an average of 5.5 hours will be required each year to meet the burden imposed by this regulation's Records Retention requirements.

The estimated burden associated with the contents of an Superfund State Contract represents the number of hours that are spent in research, data collection, analysis, negotiation, and preparation of the Superfund State Contract each year. EPA estimates that approximately 52 Superfund State Contracts are in place each year. The Superfund grants program workgroup estimates that 30 hours are needed to meet the burden imposed by the requirements under a Superfund State Contract. Those requirements include: General Authorities; Purpose statement; site description; statement to follow guidance; statement of work; schedule of deliverables; SPOC; 11 CERCLA assurances; list of Support Agency cooperative agreements; sanctions for failure to comply with the terms of the Superfund State Contract; site access; joint inspection of the remedy; exclusion of third party benefits; State review; and a list of responsible party activities.

The estimated burden associated with Consolidated Funding represents the number of hours that are spent in research, data collection, analysis, negotiation, and preparation of Consolidated Funding agreements each year. EPA estimates that approximately 2 Consolidated Funding agreements are in place each year. EPA estimates that approximately 74 hours a year are necessary to meet the requirements of a Consolidated Funding agreement. The majority of the burden complying with the requirements of this type of agreement are due to the fact that one Consolidated Funding cooperative agreement imposes the same burden as three regular cooperative agreements. This three fold burden can be attributed to the three fold increase in the paperwork needed to document, track, and respond to the requirements of this type of cooperative agreement. 12 6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs For all activities covered by this ICR, wage rates for State, Tribal, and political subdivision personnel are estimated to be comparable to those of Federal government personnel. These wage rates were estimated based upon corresponding Federal GS wage rates as of January 2004. The rates, as outlined below are multiplied by a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses.

Management GS 13, step 1 $ 48.22/ hour Technical GS 11, step 1 $ 33.84/ hour Clerical GS 7, step 1 $ 22.86/ hour These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. These rates can be obtained from the OPM website, http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 04tables/ html/ gs. asp. It is further estimated that approximately 20% of the respondent activity is Managerial, 70% is Technical, and 10% is Clerical in nature. Based upon the above, the weighted average is $ 35.52/ hour [( 48.22* 0.2)+( 33.84* 0.7)+( 22.86* 0.1)].

( ii) Estimating Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs The only type of costs associated with this information collection activity are labor costs. There is no estimated Capital/ Startup and Operation and Maintenance Costs associated with this collection of information.

( iii) Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs The total capital/ startup costs for this ICR are $ 0. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( a), Total annualized capital/ startup costs.

The total operation and maintenance ( O& M) costs for this ICR are $ 0. This is the total of column G. These costs are shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( b), Total annual costs ( O& M).

The total respondent costs in block 14 have been calculated as the addition of the capital/ startup costs, and the annual operation and maintenance costs. The average annual cost for capital/ startup and operation and maintenance costs to respondents over the next three years of the ICR is estimated to be $ 0. This cost is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. The numbers in block 14 of the OMB 83 I form are rounded to show the cost in thousands of dollars. 13 6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost The only costs to the Agency are those costs associated with maintenance, analysis, and utilization of the collected information.

The average Agency cost for the collection and administration of the information required by this ICR is estimated to be $ 262,017 [ see Table 2]. This cost is based on the average hourly labor rate at a GS 12, Step 1, times a 1.6 benefits multiplication factor to account for government overhead expenses for a total hourly rate of $ 40.56.

These rates are from the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) " 2004 General Schedule" which excludes locality rates of pay. These rates can be obtained from the OPM website, http:// www. opm. gov/ oca/ 04tables/ html/ gs. asp. Details upon which this estimate is based appear in Table 2, " Total Agency Burden," below.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs Based on our research for this ICR, approximately 581 respondents will provide the information required under 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O each year.

The number of Total Annual Responses is 581. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( b), Total annual responses.

The Total Hours Requested is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 13( c). The total annual labor costs are $ 215,340. The annual labor costs are not shown on the OMB 83 I form. Details regarding these estimates may be found in Table 1. ( Total Respondent Burden).

Note that the total annual capital and O& M costs to the regulated entity are $ 0. This number is shown on the OMB 83 I form in block 14( c), Total annualized cost requested. These costs are detailed in Section 6( b)( iii), Capital/ Startup vs. Operation and Maintenance ( O& M) Costs.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours Burden Hours And Cost Tables The bottom line burden hours and cost tables for both the Agency and the respondents appear below. The annual respondent burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10.5 hours per response.

6( f) Reasons for Change in Burden The increase in burden from the most recently approved ICR reflects the correction of several calculation errors in the last ICR and revised input from the Regions. The cost per burden hour has increased due to an increase in labor rates since approval of the last ICR. 14 6( g) Burden Statement Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Numbers for EPA's regulations are listed at 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number SFUND 2004 0008, which is available for public viewing at the OSWER Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue., N. W., Washington, D. C. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the OSWER Docket is ( 202) 566 0276. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Office for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID Number SFUND 2004 0008 and OMB Control Number 2050 0179 in any correspondence.

Part B of the Supporting Statement This part is not applicable because no statistical methods were used in collecting this information. 15 Table 1: Total Respondent Burden Activity Unit Burden ( Hours) Unit Labor Cost ( Dollars) Total Unit Cost ( Dollars) Average number of respondents per Year ( Full) Total Burden ( Hours) Total Cost ( Dollars)

Pre remedial CA 7 $ 35.52 $ 248.64 33 231 $ 8,205.12 Remedial response CA 20 $ 35.52 $ 710.40 30 600 $ 21,312.00 Enforcement CA 43 $ 35.52 $ 1,527.36 1 43 $ 1,527.36 Removal response CA 42 $ 35.52 $ 1,491.84 21 882 $ 31,328.64 Core program CA 8 $ 35.52 $ 284.16 22 176 $ 6,251.52 Support agency CA 8 $ 35.52 $ 284.16 45 360 $ 12,787.20 Records retention 5.5 $ 35.52 $ 195.36 375 2,062.5 $ 73,260.00 Superfund State Contract 30 $ 35.52 $ 1,065.60 52 1,560 $ 55,411.20 Conclusion of Superfund State Contract 5 $ 35.52 $ 177.60 0 0 0 Consolidated funding 74 $ 35.52 $ 2,628.48 2 148 $ 5,256.96 TOTAL 581 6,062.5 $ 215,340 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 581*

TOTAL BURDEN HOURS* 6,062.5*

AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT* 10.5*

TOTAL COST $ 215,340*

* Amendment respondents are assumed to have only 1/ 3 of the burden imposed as Full respondents, since the process of amending is not as extensive as it is for a new application for a CA. Current Subpart O language does not address amendments / changes to CAs, which are covered under Part 31, so neither the number of recipients, nor the respective burden hours, are included in this calculation. 16 Table 2: Total Agency Burden Activity Unit Burden ( Hours) Unit Labor Cost ( Dollars) Total Unit Cost ( Dollars) Average number of respondents per Year ( Full) Total Burden ( Hours) Total Cost ( Dollars)

Pre remedial CA 23 $ 40.56 $ 932.88 33 759 $, 30785.04 Remedial response CA 36 $ 40.56 $ 1,460.16 30 1,080 $ 43,804.80 Enforcement CA 35 $ 40.56 $ 1,419.60 1 35 $ 1,419.60 Removal response CA 36 $ 40.56 $ 1,460.16 21 756 $ 30,663.36 Core program CA 15 $ 40.56 $ 608.40 22 330 $ 13,384.80 Support agency CA 14 $ 40.56 $ 567.84 45 630 $ 25,552.80 Records retention 2 $ 40.56 $ 81.12 375 750 $ 3,0420 Superfund State Contract 40 $ 40.56 $ 1,622.40 52 2,080 $ 84,364.80 Conclusion of Superfund State Contract 13 $ 40.56 $ 527.28 0 0 Consolidated funding 20 $ 40.56 $ 811.20 2 40 $ 1,622.40 TOTAL 581 6,460 $ 262,017.60 TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS 581*

TOTAL BURDEN HOURS 6,460 AVERAGE BURDEN HOURS PER RESPONDENT* 11.1 TOTAL COST $ 262,017.60 * Amendment respondents are assumed to have only 1/ 3 of the burden imposed as Full respondents, since the process of amending is not as extensive as it is for a new application for a CA. Current Subpart O language does not address amendments / changes to CAs, which are covered under Part 31, so neither the number of recipients, nor the respective burden hours, are included in this calculation.


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: PV Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Jeneil Biosurfactant Company
[IN-10852]
	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([IN-10852]) from Technology Sciences Group Inc. (1150 18[th] Street, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036) on behalf of Jeneil Biosurfactant Company, 400 N. Dekora Woods Blvd. Saukville, WI  53080 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.
(Options (pick one)
	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
	Isobutryic acid, CAS #79-31-2, when used as an inert solvent applied to growing crops or harvested crops under 40 CFR 180.910 in pesticide formulations.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry NA remove
	1. Plant metabolism.
	2. Analytical method. NA remove
	3. Magnitude of residues. NA remove
B. Toxicological Profile  The toxic effect of concern for isobutyric acid, as with many acids, is corrosivity at the site of contact, including skin and eyes. Isobutyric acid is an endogenous chemical in humans, being an intermediate in the metabolism of several amino acids. It is also a natural component of many foods; therefore, adverse effects are not likely when residues of isobutyric acid from a pesticide are ingested.
To assess the toxicity of isobutyric acid, a number of peer-reviewed data sources were used, including the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives' (JECFA's) review of methyl-substituted saturated aliphatic branched-chain primary alcohols, aldehydes, and acids; the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) dataset/dossier for isobutyric acid; the European Chemicals Bureau (ECB) IUCLID dataset on isobutyric acid; and the OECD's HPV Screening Information Dataset report on isobutyric acid and on n-Butyric Acid/n-Butyric Anhydride Category.  In addition, data on isobutanol were used to evaluate the subchronic toxicity of isobutyric acid, as these two are related structurally and metabolically in mammals. Isobutyric acid is a metabolic product of isobutanol. Isobutanol is metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase to form isobutyric acid via conversion to isobutyraldehyde. The OECD (2003) and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) also used this approach to assess isobutyric acid's toxicity.
	1. Acute toxicity.  In an OECD test guideline (TG) 401 study, male and female WISW rats (5/sex/dose) received isobutyric acid (>99% pure) by gavage at doses of 1990, 2510, 2835, or 3160 mg/kg bw, and were observed for 14 days. Observations included slight to severe sedation and ataxia, lateral and prone position, labored breathing, and staggering with the first 30 minutes. After that time, animals exhibited hypothermia, ruffled fur, trembling, bloody noses and snouts, and blood in the urine. Signs persisted in some animals until the end of the 14-day observation period. There was clear body weight reduction even at the lowest dose of 1990 mg/kg bw. Mortality was seen at all 4 doses (3/10, 8/10, 9/10, 8/10). The LD50 was determined to be 2230 mg/kg bw.  Another OECD TG 401-equivalent study derived a similar oral LD50 value. Gassner rats were gavaged with 190, 1516, 2370, 2650, 3030 or 6060 mg/kg bw and observed for 7 days. Clinical signs of toxicity included abdominal position, apathy, dyspnea, cyanosis, acute dilatation, and proventiourlus septum; body weights were not tracked. Mortality was 100% at the two high doses, and 80%, 20%, 0% and 0%, respectively, in the remaining doses. The oral LD50 was 2510 mg/kg bw. An older acute oral toxicity study of male Carworth-Wistar rats used gavage doses of 161-436 mg/kg bw and derived an LD50 of 266 mg/kg bw (ECHA 2013). JECFA references a secondary source of an oral rat study in which the LD50 was determined to be 280 mg/kg. No further data were provided.  In rabbits, the oral LD50 for isobutyric acid was 8000 mg/kg bw.
Overall, acute oral LD50 values range from 266-2230 mg/L in rats. ECHA rated the study determining the LD50 of 2230 mg/kg bw as "reliable without restriction," while the other two rat studies were determined "reliable with restrictions."  The two lower LD50 values may or may not reference the same original study.  It is unclear why these values are so disparate from the other two values.  Most of the details on the test material (e.g., purity, stability, storage conditions), the effects (e.g., necropsy and any other examinations), etc., were not available for review in the two studies with lower LD50 values.  Based on the ECHA rating of the study with the higher LD50, oral Toxicity Category III is appropriate for isobutyric acid.
An acute dermal study was conducted in New Zealand white male rabbits (4/group) in a study equivalent to an OECD Guideline study. Administration of the test compound at concentrations of 351 - 636 mg/kg and occlusive wrapping for 24 hours was followed by a 14-day observation period. The dermal LD50 was 475 mg/kg bw, corresponding to acute dermal toxicity category II.
No mortality was noted in an OECD guideline study, when 6 male and 6 female rats inhaled air saturated with isobutyric acid (about 9.59 mg/L) for eight hours. This corresponds to an acute inhalation toxicity category of IV.

	2. Genotoxicty. Results for multiple Ames assays on isobutyric acid were negative for mutagenicity under all conditions tested. The Salmonella typhimurium strains that have been tested are TA98, TA100, TA1535, TA1537, and TA1538, and concentrations tested are as high as 5000 μg/plate in the absence and presence of metabolic activation. Negative results were also obtained in the rec assay with Bacillus subtilis H17 and M45 at concentrations of 19 g/plate. Isobutyric acid at concentrations up to 1000 g/mL did not induce unscheduled DNA synthesis in rat hepatocytes.  A mouse lymphoma assay produced weakly positive results in L5178Y TK+/- cells at a concentration of 500 g/mL without metabolic activation, and negative results at 600 g/mL in the presence of activation. JECFA concluded that isobutyric acid, along with other aliphatic acyclic branched-chain primary alcohols, aldehydes, and carboxylic acids are not mutagenic or clastogenic in vitro or in vivo. JECFA did not attribute the one weakly positive effect in the mouse lymphoma assay to direct DNA damage.
	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  In two prenatal developmental toxicity inhalation studies, mated female Wistar rats and Himalayan rabbits were exposed to isobutanol (99.8%) at vapor concentrations of  0, 151, 758 or 3030 ppm (0, 500, 2,500 or 10,000 mg/m[3]) for six hours/day. The rats were dosed on post-coitum days 6-15. No mortality or significant differences in clinical signs, body weight development, or gross pathology between controls and treated groups were observed. No effects on development were noted. The maternal and developmental rat NOAELs were 3030 ppm.  Rabbits (15/dose) were dosed on post-insemination days 7-19. High-dose rabbit dams had a slightly lower body weight gain, particularly during the first phase of exposure.    The maternal NOAEL for rabbits was 758 ppm. Fetuses exhibited no signs of developmental changes in response to isobutanol. Therefore, the rabbit developmental NOAEL was 3030 ppm, the highest dose.
In a 2-generation reproductive inhalation study isobutanol (99.9%) was administered to 30 Crl:CD(SD)IGS BR rats/sex/dose by whole body exposure at 0, 500, 1000 and 2500 ppm (0, 1476, 2952, and 7380 mg/m³) for 6 hours per day 7 days per week. Exposure began at the commencement of the study for the F0 generation, and on postnatal day 28 for the F1 generation. It ended after weaning of the pups (F0 generation postnatal day 28, F1 generation postnatal day 21). For dams, exposure was discontinued after day 20 of gestation through lactation day 5. No exposure-related effects were observed on F0 and F1 parental survival or on F0 and F1 reproductive performance, body weights, food consumption and food efficiency in males or females.  There were no significant spermatogenic or macroscopic findings, changes in primordial follicle or corpora lutea counts, changes in mean organ weights or histopathologic lesions in the F0 or F1 rats at any dose. Pup endpoints were not significant for either F1 or F2 generations, including survival, general physical condition, and mean body weights. There were no macroscopic findings, changes in mean organ weights, or maturation of F1 pups. The NOAEL of isobutanol for parental systemic, reproductive and neonatal toxicity is 2500 ppm (7380 mg/m³, the maximum applied dose) in males and females of the F0, F1 and F2 generations (ECHA 2014b). The study was rated "reliable without restriction" by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA).
	4. Subchronic toxicity.   There were no studies identified on the subchronic, chronic, developmental, or reproductive toxicity of isobutyric acid.  A structural assessment of toxicity was carried out using the method of Cramer. Repeat-dose studies of isobutanol were used to bridge the subchronic data gap for isobutyric acid. Isobutanol is related structurally and metabolically to isobutyric acid. In animals, isobutanol is metabolized by alcohol dehydrogenase to isobutyric acid via conversion to isobutyraldehyde.
The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) reviewed isobutyric acid as a member of the methyl-substituted saturated aliphatic branched-chain primary alcohols, aldehydes, and acids group, and determined that isobutyric acid and the other 21 compounds in this group belong in Cramer Structural Class I. The Cramer scheme is a peer-reviewed approach to classifying chemicals with respect to non-cancer risk from oral exposure. It primarily uses information on the toxicity of a chemical's substructures and the predicted pathway of mammalian metabolism. Other factors in the classification include whether the compound occurs naturally in the body and in food.  Isobutyric acid is categorized as a Class I substance, which is the lowest concern, based on the absence of substructures associated with toxicity, an efficient metabolic pathway, and the fact that it is an endogenous chemical in humans and in food.
In a 90-day oral rodent toxicity study on isobutanol, which served as the scientific basis for US EPA's oral Reference Dose (RfD) for that compound (U.S. EPA 1991), the test compound was administered to 30 Crj: CD(SD) rats/sex/dose by gavage at dose levels of 0, 100, 316, or 1000 mg/kg bw/day. Treatment related effects were seen only at 1000 mg/kg bw/day and included hypoactivity, which was significant during week one and decreased markedly after week 4, and lower body weight gain (18% below that of control rats) in males during week one. Food consumption averages were below those of the controls for both males and females during weeks 1 and 2. Clinical signs and effects on body weight and food consumption were all transient and were considered as adaptive and therefore as not adverse. In addition, serum potassium levels were 11-15% lower in both sexes compared to controls on day 29, but group mean serum potassium concentrations were similar for treated and control groups at the final clinical pathologic evaluation. No other significant difference between dosed groups and controls were found for ophthalmoscopic examination, hematology, urinalysis, organ weights, gross pathology and histopathology.  The NOEL was determined to be 316 mg/kg bw/day and the NOAEL was 1000 mg/kg/day. U.S. EPA derived an oral RfD of 0.3 mg/kg/day for isobutanol by applying uncertainty factors totaling 1000 to this NOEL.
Wistar rats (10/sex/group) were exposed to isobutanol in drinking water at concentrations of 0, 1000, 4000, or 16,000 ppm, equivalent to approximately 0, 80, 340, or 1450 mg/kg bw/day isobutanol actually ingested. The 90-day study was carried out under OECD Test Guideline 408 and included full hematology, urinalysis, and ophthalmological endpoints as well as post-sacrifice histological exam.  Body weight, food and water consumption, and clinical signs of toxicity were monitored throughout the study.  There were no significant dose-dependent signs of toxicity in any of these parameters. Study authors concluded that the NOAEL for isobutanol was the highest dose, 1450 mg/kg/day.
In a 90-day inhalation study, 99% pure isobutanol was administered by dynamic whole-body exposure to 10-20 Sprague-Dawley rats/sex/dose at 0, 250, 1000, or 2500 ppm for 6 hours per day, 5 days/week.  During exposure time only, there was a slight decreased response to external stimuli that disappeared immediately after exposure. ECHA considered it an effect of the narcotic properties of isobutanol rather than an adverse effect.  In high dose females, total erythrocyte count, hemoglobin, and hematocrit were slightly elevated compared to controls (p <= 0.05). ECHA considered this to be not biologically significant. No differences were found in body weight, food consumption, ophthalmoscopic examination, clinical observation, clinical chemistry, neurobehavioral observations, organ weights, gross pathology, and histopathology. The NOAEL for repeat-dose effects including neurotoxicity was 2500 ppm.
.
	5. Chronic toxicity. No chronic studies were identified for isobutyric acid or its metabolites.
	6. Animal metabolism. Branched-chain acyclic aliphatic acids in general are rapidly absorbed following an oral dose. The metabolism of isobutyric acid has been well studied in rodent models. The β-carbon undergoes oxidation to yield propionic acid, which is eventually fully metabolized via the fatty acid pathway or Kreb's cycle.  Increased methylmalonic acid and succinic acid have also been detected in urine following an oral dose of isobutyric acid.
In male Charles River CD rats, 75.4, 83.3, and 66.7% of gavage doses of 4, 40, or 400 mg/kg bw radio-labeled isobutyric acid, respectively, were exhaled as CO2 after 4-hours. After 48-hours, 85-90% of the doses had been exhaled. Less than 5% of the dose was recovered in the urine and feces. There was no isobutyric acid in milk or peripheral blood of dairy cattle that had eaten 170 mg/kg/day for 10 days.
Isobutyric acid was detected in the serum and plasma of fasted human subjects (n=6) at mean concentrations of 30.7 μg/dL and 143 μg/dL, respectively. It has also been detected in human feces..
	7. Metabolite toxicology. NA Remove
	8. Endocrine disruption. Toxicity data related to endocrine disruption were not identified in the isobutyric acid database. As the scientific knowledge develops, screening of additional compounds may be added to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). When additional screening and/or testing is conducted, isobutyric acid may be the focus of screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption.
C. Aggregate Exposure
	1. Dietary exposure. The estimated dietary exposure to isobutyric acid was determined using methods to estimate chronic dietary exposure for a generic inert ingredient. This assessment considers drinking water and crop-specific residues from pre-harvest applications of agricultural insecticides, herbicides and fungicides, assuming the highest established tolerance level residue for each commodity.  The assessment assumes that the inert ingredient is used on all crops.  The inert ingredient is assumed to be present in all commodities treated with 57 of the most significant active ingredients at the maximum tolerance level as identified by the U.S. EPA for the default assessment.  Chronic dietary exposure estimates were derived for the general US population and sub-groups of the population using the Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model, DEEM(TM).  Assuming all crops are treated with formulated products containing 10% isobutyric acid by weight, the estimated chronic exposure for the total US population is 0.038 mg/kg/day, 10.1% of the chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD).  Children age 1 to 2 years old have the highest estimated exposure at 0.141 mg/kg/day, or 37.6% of the cPAD.
	i. Food. Dietary exposures of concern are not anticipated for isobutyric acid due to its lack of persistence in the environment and low general toxicity.  A significant source of dietary isobutyric acid comes from natural food sources and its use as a food additive. The annual individual consumption of isobutyric acid from food flavoring substances was estimated to be 140 μg/person/day in the U.S., equivalent to 2.0 μg/kg bw/day.
	ii. Drinking water. Isobutyric acid exposure via drinking water from use as an inert ingredient is not expected to be significant. Isobutyric acid is readily biodegradable.  Exposure via drinking water was estimated in the DEEM dietary exposure assessment assuming a concentration of 100 ppb.
	2. Non-dietary exposure. Residential exposures of concern are not anticipated for isobutyric acid due to its ready ability to biodegrade in the environment, low projected use-level in pesticides, and low general toxicity.
D. Cumulative Effects
	Section 408(b)(2)(D) (9v) of the 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."
To our knowledge there are no available data or other reliable information that suggests any toxic effects produced by isobutyric acid would be cumulative with those of any other chemical compounds. EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to isobutyric acid and other compounds. Isobutyric acid does not produce toxic metabolites in common with other substances of potential concern. For the purpose of the tolerance exemption proposed, it is assumed that isobutyric acid does not share a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
E. Safety Determination
	1. U.S. population. Taking into consideration all available information on isobutyric acid, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to any population subgroup will result from dietary and other nonoccupational exposures to isobutyric acid when used as an inert ingredient in an inert mixture intended for use in pesticide formulations.  Adjusting for relative molecular weight, EPA's oral RfD of 0.3 mg/kg/day for isobutanol was used to derive an RfD for isobutyric acid of 0.376 mg/kg/day, which added uncertainty factors totaling 1000 for interspecies extrapolation, intraspecies variability, and for extrapolating subchronic exposure to chronic exposure. The chronic Population Adjusted Dose (cPAD) was determined to be the same as the RfD because no effects of isobutanol on development or reproduction were observed, suggesting that isobutyric acid too would not increase susceptibility of sensitive populations.  For the total US population, the estimated chronic dietary exposure from food and drinking water for isobutyric acid, calculated as 10% of all agricultural formulations, is 10.1% of the cPAD, well below any level of potential concern.
	2. Infants and children. An evaluation of susceptibility and uncertainty issues associated with isobutyric acid has been performed and there is a reasonable certainty that no harm to infants and children will result from the use of isobutyric acid as an inert ingredient in pesticide products. The structurally similar and metabolically related compound isobutyl alcohol was not a developmental toxin to rats or rabbits following inhalation.  For this reason, a safety factor analysis has not been implemented to assess risk and the additional tenfold safety factor for the protection of infants and children is also unnecessary. The estimated chronic dietary exposure from food and drinking water was highest (37.6% of cPAD) for children aged 1 to 2 years old.  This estimated exposure to isobutyric acid is well below any level of potential concern.
F. International Tolerances
NA Remove


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 109 (Friday, June 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 32807]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-34]

[Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received]

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before June 26, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0297 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mark James, Policy and Regulation
(ACE-111), Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,
FAA; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Sandra K. Long, ARM-201, Office of
Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20591, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone (202) 267-
4714.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2014.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0297.
    Petitioner: Cub Crafters, Incorporated.

Section of 14 CFR Affected

    14 CFR 23.629

Description of Relief Sought

    The petitioner is seeking relief from the revised requirement of
14 CFR 23.629 amendments 23-48 and 23-62 to flight flutter test the
Gavilan EL-1 airplane.

[FR Doc. 2014-13168 Filed 6-5-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P